DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final communication is in response to Application No. 18/411,752 filed 1/12/2024, which is a divisional application of Application No. 17/336,062 (now abandoned) filed 6/1/2021, which in turn is a continuation of 16/265,248 (now U.S. Patent 11,023,117) filed 2/1/2019, which in turn is a continuation in part of Application No. 15/365,077 (now abandoned) filed 11/30/2016, which in turn is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 14/990,685 (now abandoned), which finally claims priority from Provisional Application No. 62/100,768 filed 1/7/2015. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-21 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 14/990,685 and 15/365,077, and Provisional Application No. 62/100,768 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, the following limitation of the independent claims is only supported by Application Nos. 16/265,248 (see the Specification, page 50, lines 5-15 of the filed application) and 17/336,062:
“the report indicating at least one of: (i) a first number of times the one or more elements of the digital asset are shown to an audience; (ii) a second number of times the one or more elements are correctly rendered by the digital asset; or (iii) a third number of times the one or more elements are incorrectly rendered by the digital asset.”
Because of this, the claims of this application have an effective filing date of 2/1/2019.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-14, and 16-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,023,117. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims of the instant application are a mere broadening of the claims of the patent and are therefore obvious in view of the Patent. See the table below:
This Application, No. 18/411,752
U.S. Patent No. 11,023,117
1. A system for automatically monitoring variations in a digital asset, comprising:
1. A system for automatically monitoring variations in a target web page, comprising:
a local computer system executing a web browser; a plugin executed by the web browser of the local computer system, the plugin causing the web browser to:
display the target web page in the web browser, and allow a user to select one or more elements of the target web page for which the user desires automatic variance detection;
a computer system in communication with a user device, the computer system:
and a remote computer system in communication with the local computer system, the remote computer system:
receiving from the user device one or more elements of a digital asset identified by the user using the user device;
receiving the one or more elements selected by the user using the plugin,
processing the digital asset to automatically compare the one or more elements of the digital asset to at least one benchmark iteration of the digital asset to automatically identify whether the one or more elements of the digital asset have been varied;
processing the target web page to automatically compare, over a period of time, sections of code representations of the target web page and pixel rendering of the one or more elements of the target web page to respective benchmark iterations of the target web page, to identify whether the one or more elements of the target web page have been varied,
and generating and transmitting a report to the user indicating whether the one or more elements of the digital asset have been varied,
and generating and transmitting a report to the user indicating whether the one or more elements of the target web page have been varied;
wherein the plugin displays a graphical representation and the code representations of the target web page, such that: (i) variances in the one or more elements of the target web page that are not visible in the code representations of the target web page are visible in the graphical representation of the target web page; and (ii) other variances in the one or more elements of the target web page that are not visible in the graphical representation of the target web page are visible in the code representations of the target web page,
the report indicating at least one of: (i) a first number of times the one or more elements of the digital asset are shown to an audience; (ii) a second number of times the one or more elements are correctly rendered by the digital asset; or (iii) a third number of times the one or more elements are incorrectly rendered by the digital asset.
and wherein the remote computer system determines analytics relating to the one or more elements of the target web page, the analytics including: a first number of times the one or more elements of the target web page are shown to an audience; a second number of times the one or more elements are correctly rendered by the target web page in accordance with a corporate brand standard; and a third number of times the one or more elements are incorrectly rendered by the target web page in violation of the corporate brand standard.
Aside from the Patent’s claims 2 and 15, the rest of the claims are substantially the same as the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cordasco (US 2012/0151329 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cordasco teaches a system for automatically monitoring variations in a digital asset. More specifically, different testing schemes such as A/B, split, and multivariate testing, can be used on webpages to compare a baseline control webpage to a variety of webpage test samples. Based on the results of such testing, different content can be used to improve response rates for the webpages (Cordasco, [0003]).
comprising: a computer system in communication with a user device, the computer system: receiving from the user device one or more elements of a digital asset identified by the user using the user device. More specifically, the operator may select an element within the webpage via the user interface (Cordasco, [0068]-[0070]).
processing the digital asset to automatically compare the one or more elements of the digital asset to at least one benchmark iteration of the digital asset to automatically identify whether the one or more elements of the digital asset have been varied. More specifically, variant manager 140 also may display a test control panel 340 in response to selection of element 128E and/or in response to selection of save icon 327. Test control panel 340 may identify different variants created for the webpage pertaining to the selected element (Cordasco, [0073]).
generating and transmitting a report to the user indicating whether the one or more elements of the digital asset have been varied, the report indicating at least one of: (i) a first number of times the one or more elements of the digital asset are shown to an audience; (ii) a second number of times the one or more elements are correctly rendered by the digital asset; or (iii) a third number of times the one or more elements are incorrectly rendered by the digital asset. More specifically, test control panel 340 reports the variations pertaining to the selected element (Cordasco, [0073]). Additionally reported is a number of page views 384 pertaining to each variant, construed as a number of times the one or more elements of the digital asset are shown to an audience (Cordasco, Figure 10, [0082]).
Regarding claim 2, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the user device allows the user to identify select the one or more elements of the digital asset by clicking on the one or more elements and defining an inspector element for each of the one or more elements. More specifically, the selecting of items 308 or 310 in panel 306 after the selection of an element is construed as defining an inspector element for the element. They cause an editor to open which is used to create new variants for the selected element (Cordasco, Figures 7 and 8, [0069]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 3, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 2, wherein the user device generates a recorder element for each of the inspector elements and displays a list of each recorder element. More specifically, the selection and displays of tests and goals pertaining to each variant is construed as the generating a recorder element (Cordasco, Figure 9, [0075]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 4, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 3, wherein the user device generates an inspector detail panel which allows the user to define detailed information about each inspector element. More specifically, Figure 8 depicts a panel for specifying details of the inspector element (Cordasco, [0071]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 4, wherein the user device transmits information about the inspector elements and the recorder elements to the computer system. More specifically, Figure 1 depicts the communication between variant elements (inspector) and computer systems with criteria 138 (recorder) used in the testing and reporting of the variants (Cordasco, Figure 1, [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 5, wherein the computer system processes the information about the inspector elements and the recorder elements to control automatic variance detection for the one or more elements of the digital asset. More specifically, the content manager determines which variants are displayed to users within webpages (Cordasco, [0035], [0036], [0061], [0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the user device: allows the user to select a link on the digital asset; display a linked web page corresponding to the link; and allows the user to select one or more further elements of the linked web page for which the user desires automatic variance detection. More specifically, a user can select further elements in a web page for variant creation/identification (Cordasco, [0033]). A user may select elements of any page they land on; a user may perform a search via a search engine and select an identified link to the website. The webpage downloaded to the web browser may include JavaScript code that operates as a content management (CM) agent. The CM sends a notification to a content server and the content server identifies if there are any variants for the webpage (Cordasco, [0059] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 7, wherein the computer system: receives the one or more further elements selected by the user; processes the linked web page to automatically identify whether the one or more further elements of the linked web page have been varied; and indicates whether the one or more further elements of the linked web page have been varied in the report. More specifically, a user can select further elements in a web page for variant creation/identification (Cordasco, [0033]). A user may select elements of any page they land on; a user may perform a search via a search engine and select an identified link to the website. The webpage downloaded to the web browser may include JavaScript code that operates as a content management (CM) agent. The CM sends a notification to a content server and the content server identifies if there are any variants for the webpage (Cordasco, [0059] and [0062]).
Regarding claims 13-20, these claims recite the method that performs the steps of the system of claims 1-8, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
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) 9-11 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordasco, and further in view of Rodriguez Valadez et al. (US 9,262,396 B1, hereinafter “Rodriguez”).
Regarding claim 9, Cordasco teaches the system of Claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the user device: displays a benchmark view and a variance output view, wherein the benchmark view displays the digital asset at a point in time when the user sets a benchmark, and the variance output view displays the digital asset in real-time; and indicates on at least one of the benchmark view or the variance output view whether the one or more elements of the digital asset have been varied.
Rodriguez discloses browser compatibility checking of a web page source document is implemented on one or more servers (Rodriguez, abstract). Figure 2 depicts the setup of the comparison where a live web page is designated with URL 202 and a baseline web page is designated at 236 (Rodriguez, Figure 2, col 4, lines 41-49; col 5, lines 57-67). Figure 6 depicts a side-by-side view of the baseline/benchmark webpage version and a rendered live webpage version. Graphical indications of variations of different elements are displayed (Rodriguez, Figure 6, col 14, lines 18-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Cordasco and Rodriguez that a system for monitoring variations in a digital asset would include displaying a benchmark view and a variance view for the digital asset indicating the variations of the digital asset. With Cordasco and Rodriguez disclosing identifying and displaying variations of elements of webpages, and with Rodriguez additionally disclosing displaying a baseline/benchmark webpage view and a live webpage view side by side and graphically indicating the variations of the webpage, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a system for monitoring variations in a digital asset would include displaying a benchmark view and a variance view for the digital asset indicating the variations of the digital asset in order to provide a more visual differencing of versions of the digital asset making analysis and observations easier for a user. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this system for monitoring variations in a digital asset.
Regarding claim 10, Cordasco and Rodriguez teach the system of Claim 9, wherein the benchmark view and the variance output view are each a graphical view of the digital asset. More specifically, Figure 6 depicts a side-by-side view of the baseline/benchmark webpage version and a rendered live webpage version. Graphical indications of variations of different elements are displayed (Rodriguez, Figure 6, col 14, lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 11, Cordasco and Rodriguez teach the system of Claim 10, wherein in the graphical view, the one or more elements of the digital asset being having been varied comprise: a change in image content, a distorted or blurry image, a change in image location, a change image size, or a changed text. More specifically, Cordasco teaches the variants could have different text and font effects (Cordasco, at least Figure 8). Rodriguez teaches the variations of different elements are relocations of images and text (Rodriguez, Figure 6, 616(2) and 616(4)).
Regarding claims 21-23, these claims recite the method that performs the steps of the system of claims 9-11, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim(s) 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordasco and Rodriguez, and further in view of Heyhoe et al. (US 2009/0300580 A1, hereinafter “Heyhoe”).
Regarding claim 12, Cordasco and Rodriguez teach the system of Claim 9, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the benchmark view and the variance output view are each an HTML code view of the digital asset.
Heyhoe discloses a system and method for managing parallel development of projects (Heyhoe, abstract). Comparisons between baseline code and other versions of code as well as graphical comparisons are performed (Heyhoe, [0016]-[0017], [0184]). At least Figure 55 depicts a view of the side-by-side comparison of two versions of graphical/rendered web pages (Heyhoe, [0233]). At least Figure 57 depicts a view of the side-by-side comparison of two versions of html code views (Heyhoe, [0235]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Cordasco and Rodriguez with Heyhoe that a system for monitoring variations in a digital asset using a side-by-side view of the rendered variations would include displaying benchmark view and a variance view for the html code of the digital asset indicating the variations of the digital asset. With Cordasco, Rodriguez, and Heyhoe disclosing identifying and displaying variations of elements of webpages, with Rodriguez and Heyhoe disclosing displaying a view of the baseline/benchmark webpage and another version of the webpage side by side, and with Hey additionally disclosing the side by side view of the rendered versions of webpages can be switched to a side-by-side HTML code view of the versions of webpages, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a system for monitoring variations in a digital asset using a side-by-side view of the rendered variations would include displaying benchmark view and a variance view for the html code of the digital asset indicating the variations of the digital asset because providing the code behind the digital asset provides more detail on why the versions of the digital asset may have different visual appearances. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this system for monitoring variations in a digital asset.
Regarding claim 24, this claim recites the method that performs the steps of the system of claim 12, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Pertinent Prior Art
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.
Harris (US 2014/0136944 A1) – comparison view of web pages that show rendering errors between versions.
Ahmed (US 2014/0189490 A1) – comparison view of web pages that animate the rendering differences between versions.
Belihomji (US 2014/0189490 A1) – comparison view of web based code showing differences between versions.
Shah (US 9,053,154 A1) – comparison view of web pages that show rendering differences between versions.
Yee (US 2011/0093773 A1) – comparison view of web pages that show rendering differences between versions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171