DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is responsive to: Amendment, filed 3/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarzar, U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0006454 A1, published January 2009, in view of Thomas et al. (“Thomas”), U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0271514 A1, published November 2004 in further view of Madan, U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0274013 A1, published August 31, 2023.
Regarding independent claim 1, Zarzar teaches a method comprising: detecting, by a processor, an interaction with an element of a user interface (UI); because Zarzar teaches a computing device with memory (par. 0020-0022) and a processor (par. 0025-0027).
Zarzar teaches a browser-based, what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) XML editor (par. 0017-0018). Zarzar teaches adding code that can be identified later in the post-processed HTML 252 that is manipulated by the client 250, where the codes added include custom identifiers (IDs) that are inserted in each template (par. 0031). Zarzar teaches for the custom IDs to effectively identify the XML elements with which each is associated, each time the document is transformed new custom IDs will be associated with each HTML element (par. 0037).
Zarzar teaches identifying, by the processor, a plurality of element properties responsive to the interaction, the plurality of element properties corresponding to the element and at least one ancestor element of the element; because Zarzar teaches parent and child elements, where a user can use the options submenu 320 to access the properties for the selected object (par. 0060).
Zarzar does not expressly teach generating, by the processor, an exploration configuration file including the identifier and event properties defining at least one event type associated with the element; however, Thomas teaches the data analysis toolkit (DAT) will store all user input events associated with an application or field in an application in order to record an exact history of how the application or field was used, where this capability extends to include the state of a field or control after use by the user (par. 0301). Thomas teaches an IProfileObjects interface gives clients the ability to enumerate all the possible objects in the Profile Database, and delivers object IDs and Object Names for the object type being enumerated (par. 0361; 0362; 0366-0367). Thomas teaches all profile database objects have a name and unique ID, where Object's ID is a system-assigned, immutable, unique (within each type), identifier for the object (par. 0366-0367). Thomas further teaches properties of the Event object and differences between event types such as between browsers (par. 0554-0556). Thomas also teaches configuring the web server to create logfiles containing the complete text for every URL requested, so that the payload data sent as part of the URL will appear in the server log files (par. 0623; see also par. 0615-0623).
Zarzar teaches transmitting, by the processor, the exploration configuration file to a processing platform; because Zarzar teaches when the XML editor is initiated on the host 200, such as by a request originating on the client 250, a configuration file is executed to prepare the application for the types of documents to be supported during execution of the XML editor, where the configuration is de-serialized into a class and the packages of the configuration file are evaluated and all relevant settings are cached for subsequent processing (par. 0028-0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the browser based XML editor with custom IDs taught by Zarzar, with the techniques for identifying and monitoring program objects during program execution taught by Thomas, since both were directed to handling user interface elements, and Thomas recognized that there was a need in the art selectively track, measure, and analyze user activity (par. 0005-0006), and therefore would have provided these benefits to Zarzar in order to enable the collection of relevant information relating to user productivity and expected rates of return (par. 0006).
Zarzar-Thomas fails to distinctly point out the hashing comprising hashing each of the plurality of element properties individually to generate individual hash values for the element and each of the at least one ancestor element and combining the individual hash values to form the unique fingerprint that uniquely identifies the UI element for user interaction analytics.
However, Madan teaches generating, by the processor, an identifier of the element by hashing a combination of the plurality of element properties to form a unique fingerprint;
([0034] A fingerprint is thus a compact representation of the actual data (or segment). The data (or segment) is passed through a SHA-1 (Secure Hash Function) cryptographic hash function. This produces a hash value (size 20 bytes), and this hash value is called a “fingerprint.” Each unique data segment will generate a unique fingerprint (e.g., 20 bytes in size) and this fingerprint is used to index and get the actual data segment. Basically, the fingerprint is a compact representation of the actual data, and is used to deduplicate the data ingested into the file system.)
the hashing comprising hashing each of the plurality of element properties individually to generate individual hash values for the element and each of the at least one ancestor element and combining the individual hash values to form the unique fingerprint that uniquely identifies the UI element for user interaction analytics ([0035] A file in DDFS is represented by a Merkle tree, with user data as variable sized segments at the bottom level of the tree, referred to as L0 segments. The SHA1 fingerprints of those segments are grouped together at the next higher level of the tree to form new segments, referred to as L1 segments. SHA1 fingerprints of L1 segments are grouped together as L2 segments, and this continues up to L6 which represents the entire file. The top segment of the tree is always an L6 segment, even though it may refer to any lower numbered segments. Segments above L0 are referred to as Lp chunks. The L6 segment of every file is stored in a namespace which is represented as a B+ Tree. The L0 and Lp segments are written to separate containers, known as L0 and Lp containers. [0034] A fingerprint is thus a compact representation of the actual data (or segment). The data (or segment) is passed through a SHA-1 (Secure Hash Function) cryptographic hash function. This produces a hash value (size 20 bytes), and this hash value is called a “fingerprint.” Each unique data segment will generate a unique fingerprint (e.g., 20 bytes in size) and this fingerprint is used to index and get the actual data segment. Basically, the fingerprint is a compact representation of the actual data, and is used to deduplicate the data ingested into the file system.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Madan with the modified method of Zarzar-Thomas. Motivation to do so would have been to involves only the root of the tree, it is trivially fast and does not increase physical space in use beyond the one chunk containing the L.sub.6 [0037]. The combination would have yielded predictable results and thereby teaches the transmitting step as a combination.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Zarzar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the interaction comprises detecting one or more of a click, tap event, or system event via an event handler; since Zarzar teaches the generation of HTML event handlers that are appropriate to each HTML element (par. 0038). Zarzar teaches to facilitate accessing an appropriate editing tool, an event handler identifying the appropriate editing tool for each element is associated with each element; these "onclick" events thus, for example, may include "oncontextmenu" events to provide the editing capabilities and, thus, identify the appropriate editing tool, for an element that is selected with a pointer (par. 0038).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Zarzar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the plurality of element properties includes identifying one or more Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) attributes of the element and the at least one ancestor element; since Zarzar teaches possible implementations of an XML editor also specify custom HTML attributes to which the client 250 is configured to respond to facilitate editing operations (par. 0039; 0054). Zarzar teaches the editing marks manifested in the XML attributes also result in an HTML attribute, such as an HTML comment that will be transformed into a visual indication (par. 0063). Zarzar teaches inline XML and HTML attributes are used to mark the XML elements to be changed and cause the changes to be visually represented, respectively (par. 0067).
While Zarzar does not expressly teach identifying attributes of at least one ancestor element; Thomas teaches identifying the objects by feature ancestry to determine the qualified name of an Accessible Object: [0119] 1. For each ancestor, specify whether or not such ancestor is to be used for identification purposes. [0120] 2. For each ancestor being used for identification purposes, select one or any combination of the following three attributes for examination: Object Name, Role, and Window Class (par. 0118-0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the browser based XML editor with custom IDs taught by Zarzar, with the techniques for identifying and monitoring program objects during program execution taught by Thomas, since both were directed to handling user interface elements, and Thomas recognized that there was a need in the art selectively track, measure, and analyze user activity (par. 0005-0006), and therefore would have provided these benefits to Zarzar in order to enable the collection of relevant information relating to user productivity and expected rates of return (par. 0006).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Zarzar in view of Thomas does not disclose; however, Madan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the identifier of the element comprises hashing each of the plurality of element properties to generate hash values corresponding to the element and the at least one ancestor element; ([0034] A fingerprint is thus a compact representation of the actual data (or segment). The data (or segment) is passed through a SHA-1 (Secure Hash Function) cryptographic hash function. This produces a hash value (size 20 bytes), and this hash value is called a “fingerprint.” Each unique data segment will generate a unique fingerprint (e.g., 20 bytes in size) and this fingerprint is used to index and get the actual data segment. Basically, the fingerprint is a compact representation of the actual data, and is used to deduplicate the data ingested into the file system.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Madan with the modified method of Zarzar-Thomas. Motivation to do so would have been to involves only the root of the tree, it is trivially fast and does not increase physical space in use beyond the one chunk containing the L.sub.6 [0037]. The combination would have yielded predictable results and thereby teaches the transmitting step as a combination.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Madean teaches the method of claim 4, wherein generating the identifier of the element comprises combining the hash values to form the identifier of the element; ([0034] A fingerprint is thus a compact representation of the actual data (or segment). The data (or segment) is passed through a SHA-1 (Secure Hash Function) cryptographic hash function. This produces a hash value (size 20 bytes), and this hash value is called a “fingerprint.” Each unique data segment will generate a unique fingerprint (e.g., 20 bytes in size) and this fingerprint is used to index and get the actual data segment. Basically, the fingerprint is a compact representation of the actual data, and is used to deduplicate the data ingested into the file system.)
Regarding dependent claim 6, Zarzar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the exploration configuration file further includes receiving event properties defining at least one event type associated with the element; because Zarzar teaches in addition to the event handlers, the configuration file can define which elements support drag and drop (par. 0039; see also par. 0051).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Zarzar suggests but does not expressly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising sampling, by the processing platform, interaction data associated with the element and generating, by an analytics platform, a visualization of the interaction data; since Zarzar teaches possible implementations of an XML editor also specify custom HTML attributes to which the client 250 is configured to respond to facilitate editing operations (par. 0039; 0054). Zarzar teaches the editing marks manifested in the XML attributes also result in an HTML attribute, such as an HTML comment that will be transformed into a visual indication (par. 0063). Zarzar teaches inline XML and HTML attributes are used to mark the XML elements to be changed and cause the changes to be visually represented, respectively (par. 0067).
However, Thomas teaches a graphical interface allowing for inspection and modification of the monitoring profiles 76 stored within the database, where each monitoring profile 76 can be visualized as a treelike structure consisting of a plurality of application profiles, and there are different views such as usage by user and a history of activity by a specific application. (par. 0084; pars. 0288-0295).
Regarding dependent claims 11, 12, 18, and 19, claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as recited in dependent claims 4 and 5, above, and are therefore rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9, 10, 13, and 14, claims 8-10, 13, and 14 are directed to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a computer processor, the computer program instructions defining steps of the methods recited in claims 1-3, 6, and 7, and recite substantially similar subject matter, therefore claims 8-10, 13, and 14 are rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16, 17, and 20, claims 15-17 and 20 are directed to the device comprising: a processor; and a storage medium for tangibly storing thereon logic for execution by the processor, the logic comprising instructions for the methods recited in claims 1-3 and 6, and recite substantially similar subject matter, therefore claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Madan reference is being relied upon to teach the newly claimed limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15: … the hashing comprising hashing each of the plurality of element properties individually to generate individual hash values for the element and each of the at least one ancestor element and combining the individual hash values to form the unique fingerprint that uniquely identifies the UI element for user interaction analytics (Claim 1).
Applicant further argues Thomas fails to teach “generating an exploration configuration file including the identifier and event properties defining at least one event type associated with the element”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As pointed out in the office action. Thomas teaches an IProfileObjects interface gives clients the ability to enumerate all the possible objects in the Profile Database, and delivers object IDs and Object Names for the object type being enumerated (par. 0361; 0362; 0366-0367). Thomas teaches all profile database objects have a name and unique ID, where Object's ID is a system-assigned, immutable, unique (within each type), identifier for the object (par. 0366-0367). Thomas further teaches properties of the Event object and differences between event types such as between browsers (par. 0554-0556). Thomas also teaches configuring the web server to create logfiles containing the complete text for every URL requested, so that the payload data sent as part of the URL will appear in the server log files (par. 0623; see also par. 0615-0623). Thus IProfile object allows for retrieval of objects by unique object ID which includes event objects and event types.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN F PITARO whose telephone number is (571)272-4071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, John Cottingham can be reached at 5712721400. 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.
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights