DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: the RCE filed on 09/08/2025. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10 and 14 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/12/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2021/0182470 A1; hereinafter Gupta) in view of Rao (US 2023/0195825 A1; hereinafter Rao) further in view of Zarrow (US 2011/0166898 A1; hereinafter Zarrow).
As to claim 1, Gupta discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving a user selection of a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) element on a web page (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0024; users of client device request the paths for web elements of the web applications. ¶ 0027; the web element path locator system 102 is configured to receive requests for paths to web elements in web pages of the web applications 106 from the client devices 104);
automatically acquiring a source representation of objects which comprise a structure and content of the web page (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0024; the host agents of the client devices 104 invoke the web element path locator system 102 to determine the web element paths);
automatically processing the source representation to determine an ordered list of candidate locations for the HTML element (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0024; the host agents of the client devices 104 invoke the web element path locator system 102 to determine the web element paths. ¶ 0028-0029, 0040; The web page parsing module 120 is configured to parse the dynamic web page 160 containing the given web element to determine a plurality of web elements therein (e.g., including the given web element and one or more additional web elements). The web page parsing module 120 may be configured to generate or analyze a tree structure of the dynamic web page 160 to determine the plurality of web elements. The static web element identification module 122 is configured to identify ones of the additional web elements that have one or more designated characteristics (e.g., indicative of static or stable web elements whose location or path is not likely to change over time, such as text fields in the dynamic web page 160)).
Gupta does not express disclose the ordered list of two or more candidate locations for the HTML element and generating and displaying an output locator, the output locator presenting the ordered list of two or more location candidates for the HTML element”. However, Rao is relied for teaching the limitation. Specifically, Rao discloses a method for generating selectors through a browser extension (see ¶ 0027) comprising generating and displaying an output locator, the output locator presenting the ordered list of two or more location candidates for the HTML element (see ¶ 0046; Browser extension 200 is configured to generate one or more selectors (e.g., absolute XPath, relative XPath, and/or CSS) for an element of the webpage 220. The selectors generated by the browser extension 200 may be displayed in the window 202 and/or output to a digital file, e.g., an electronic spreadsheet or text document. In some implementations, the selectors may be saved to a comma-separated values (CSV) or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file. The user interface of the browser extension 200 may include an option (e.g., a clickable button) to generate the selector(s) for an individual element, e.g., an element 222 selected from the window 204. ¶ 0031; the terms selector or locator are used interchangeably herein to refer to an address of a webpage element. ¶ 0037; he browser extension can generate one or more selectors automatically in response selection of an option presented in a user interface of the browser extension 124 (e.g., a single click of a button). Browser extension 124 may be configured to concurrently generate multiple types of selectors for the same element. For example, the browser extension 124 may generate a relative XPath, an absolute XPath, and a CSS selector for an element, all in response to a single click).
The references each discloses a method for identifying location of objects on a webpage; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of identifying location of elements on a webpage as disclosed in Gupta to include the features of displaying multiple locations of a selected object on a webpage as suggested by Rao to provide a method of determining locations of a selected element on a webpage as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to allow a particular type of uniform resource locator to be automatically identified and extracted so that the users can obtain selectors automatically, which reduces cumbersome, errors, and time consuming; thus, enhance user experience during testing (Rao: see ¶ 0004).
Rao discloses the candidate locations can be ranked based on score (see ¶ 0108). Gupta and Rao do not expressly teach the ranking is based on estimates of accuracy of each of the two or more candidate locations. However, ranking based on accuracy is known and experimented as demonstrated by Zarrow. Specifically, Zarrow discloses that content is ranked based on accuracy feedback supplied from the expert user (see ¶ 0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the ranking algorithm disclosed by Gupta/Rao to include the specific ranking criteria that ranks content based on accuracy as disclosed in Zarrow to provide a method of determining locations of a selected element on a webpage that are ranked based on accuracy as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to achieve a more accurate locations that would allow the user to easily find the items of interest.
As to claim 14, Gupta discloses:
A system (see Fig. 1, 8 and ¶ 0004) comprising:
at least one programmable processor (see Fig. 1, 8 and ¶ 0004, 0065-0066);
a receiver to receive a user selection of a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) element on a web page (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0024; users of client device request the paths for web elements of the web applications. ¶ 0027; the web element path locator system 102 is configured to receive requests for paths to web elements in web pages of the web applications 106 from the client devices 104); and
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations (see Fig. 1, 8 and ¶ 0004, 0065, 0067) comprising:
automatically acquiring a source representation of the objects that comprise the structure and content of the web page (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0024; the host agents of the client devices 104 invoke the web element path locator system 102 to determine the web element paths);
automatically processing the source representation to determine an ordered list of location candidates indicating respective candidate locations for the HTML element (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0024; the host agents of the client devices 104 invoke the web element path locator system 102 to determine the web element paths. ¶ 0028-0029, 0040; The web page parsing module 120 is configured to parse the dynamic web page 160 containing the given web element to determine a plurality of web elements therein (e.g., including the given web element and one or more additional web elements). The web page parsing module 120 may be configured to generate or analyze a tree structure of the dynamic web page 160 to determine the plurality of web elements. The static web element identification module 122 is configured to identify ones of the additional web elements that have one or more designated characteristics (e.g., indicative of static or stable web elements whose location or path is not likely to change over time, such as text fields in the dynamic web page 160));
Gupta does not express disclose the ordered list of two or more candidate locations for the HTML element and generating and displaying an output locator, the output locator presenting the ordered list of two or more location candidates for the HTML element”. However, Rao is relied for teaching the limitation. Specifically, Rao discloses a method for generating selectors through a browser extension (see ¶ 0027) comprising generating and displaying an output locator, the output locator presenting the ordered list of two or more location candidates for the HTML element (see ¶ 0046; Browser extension 200 is configured to generate one or more selectors (e.g., absolute XPath, relative XPath, and/or CSS) for an element of the webpage 220. The selectors generated by the browser extension 200 may be displayed in the window 202 and/or output to a digital file, e.g., an electronic spreadsheet or text document. In some implementations, the selectors may be saved to a comma-separated values (CSV) or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file. The user interface of the browser extension 200 may include an option (e.g., a clickable button) to generate the selector(s) for an individual element, e.g., an element 222 selected from the window 204. ¶ 0031; the terms selector or locator are used interchangeably herein to refer to an address of a webpage element. ¶ 0037; he browser extension can generate one or more selectors automatically in response selection of an option presented in a user interface of the browser extension 124 (e.g., a single click of a button). Browser extension 124 may be configured to concurrently generate multiple types of selectors for the same element. For example, the browser extension 124 may generate a relative XPath, an absolute XPath, and a CSS selector for an element, all in response to a single click).
The references each discloses a method for identifying location of objects on a webpage; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of identifying location of elements on a webpage as disclosed in Gupta to include the features of displaying multiple locations of a selected object on a webpage as suggested by Rao to provide a method of determining locations of a selected element on a webpage as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to allow a particular type of uniform resource locator to be automatically identified and extracted so that the users can obtain selectors automatically, which reduces cumbersome, errors, and time consuming; thus, enhance user experience during testing (Rao: see ¶ 0004).
Rao discloses the candidate locations can be ranked based on score (see ¶ 0108). Gupta and Rao do not expressly teach the ranking is based on estimates of accuracy of each of the two or more candidate locations. However, ranking based on accuracy is known and experimented as demonstrated by Zarrow. Specifically, Zarrow discloses that content is ranked based on accuracy feedback supplied from the expert user (see ¶ 0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the ranking algorithm disclosed by Gupta/Rao to include the specific ranking criteria that ranks content based on accuracy as disclosed in Zarrow to provide a method of determining locations of a selected element on a webpage that are ranked based on accuracy as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to achieve a more accurate locations that would allow the user to easily find the items of interest.
As to claims 2 and 15, the rejection of claim 1 (14) is incorporated. Gupta, Rao, and Zarrow further teach: wherein the automatically processing of the source representation to determine the ordered list of candidate locations further comprises: automatically determining whether the HTML element is inside of a shadow root of a Document Object Model (DOM) tree for the web page (Gupta: see ¶ 0040-0043; One of the identified web elements having the one or more designated characteristics is selected in step 206, based at least in part on locations of the identified web elements relative to the given web element in a tree structure (e.g., the DOM tree structure) of the web page of the web application).
As to claims 3 and 16, the rejection of claim 2 (14) is incorporated. Gupta, Rao, and Zarrow further teach: wherein the automatically processing of the source representation to determine the ordered list of candidate locations further comprises: in response to automatically determining that the HTML element is not inside of a shadow host, determining whether the HTML element has a tag comprising an input, button, or radio (Gupta: see ¶ 0053; button class tag).
As to claims 4 and 17, the rejection of claim 3 (14) is incorporated. Gupta, Rao, and Zarrow further teach: wherein the automatically processing of the source representation to determine the ordered list of candidate locations further comprises: in response to automatically determine that the HTML element does not have a tag comprising an input, button, or radio, generating the output locator comprising the HTML element’s inner text (Gupta: see ¶ 0047; web elements that contain text include HTML tags such as header tags, label tags…text field).
As to claims 6 and 18, the rejection of claim 1 (14) is incorporated. Gupta, Rao, and Zarrow further teach: wherein the user selection of the HTML element on the web page is determined based on a user hovering a cursor over the HTML element (Rao: see ¶ 0098-0099; mouse hover over a matching node or over selector). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the feature of selecting an HTML element on a webpage as disclosed in Gupta to include the features of selecting an HTML element on a webpage using a hovering technique as suggested by Rao to enable a hovering technique on a webpage as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to allow a user to interact with elements on a webpage using hovering technique; thus, make it easier for the user to select an object on a webpage.
As to claims 7 and 19, the rejection of claim 1 (14) is incorporated. Gupta, Rao, and Zarrow further teach: wherein functionality of the HTML element is capable of being automated (Gupta: see ¶ 0014-0015; dynamic web elements).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gupta, Rao, and Zarrow further teach: wherein the web page comprises a dynamic web page (Gupta: see ¶ 0014-0015; dynamic web elements).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta/Rao/Zarrow further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0146383 A1; hereinafter Kim).
As to claims 9 and 20, the rejection of claim 1(14) is incorporated. Gupta, Rao, and Zarrow further do not appear to teach determining whether the HTML element is context sensitive. However, the feature of determining whether the HTML element is context sensitive is known as demonstrated by Kim (¶ 0017; webpage includes context sensitive content related to a plurality of context sensitive items; said web-page including the context sensitive content related to a plurality of context sensitive items on said web-page; a display connected to said processor; said processor further configured to generate said web-page via said display; an input device connected to said processor; said processor configured to receive focus on one of said plurality of context sensitive items via said input device; and said processor further configured to generate the context sensitive content related to said one of the plurality of context sensitive items on said display via a secondary web-browser application).
The references each discloses a method for displaying with a webpage; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the feature of identifying objects on a webpage as disclosed in Gupta/Rao/Zarrow to include the features of identifying context sensitive items on a webpage as suggested by Kim to process context sensitive items on a webpage as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to allow a proper treatment to context sensitive items on a webpage so that those items would receive focus to enhance user experience with webpages interaction (Kim: see ¶ 0017).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as indicating the foregoing rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-20, the cited references of Gupta and Rao disclose the method/system for determining locations of a selected element on a webpage using cursor; however, the cited references of Gupta and Rao fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest the combination of following limitations as recited in claims 2, 3, 5, and 10:
automatically determining whether the HTML element is inside of a shadow root of a Document Object Model (DOM) tree for the web page;
in response to automatically determining that the HTML element is not inside of a shadow host, determining whether the HTML element has a tag comprising an input, button, or radio; and
in response to automatically determining that the HTML element has a tag comprising an input, button, or radio, determining whether the HTML element has a table as a parent node; and in response to determining that the HTML element has a table as a parent node, generating the output locator comprising a table tag as a prefix, or in response to determining that the HTML element does not have a table as a parent node, generating the output locator by combining the HTML elements’ tag name, main attributes, and inner text if the HTML element is not context sensitive, or generating the output locator with the HTML element’s dependent elements as the prefix if the HTML element is context sensitive.
The dependent claims 11-13 further add limitations to the allowable subject matter of the corresponding independent claims; thus, are also allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/12/25 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179