DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action 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 . The response presented on 7/9/2026 which provides no change to the claims is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections – Withdrawn
The previous Double Patenting rejection in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,023,117 is withdrawn as necessitated by Terminal Dislcaimer filed 7/9/2026 and approved 7/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered, however, they are unpersuasive.
Applicant contends Cordasco does not teach "processing the digital asset to automatically compare one or more elements of the digital asset [which have been selected or identified by the user] 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" from claim 1.
However, the Examiner maintains that Cordasco’s “identifying” and displaying variants of elements of a webpage from the original webpage version is equivalent to the identifying of whether the one or more elements of the digital asset have been varied [by automatically comparing the one or more elements of the digital asset to at least one benchmark iteration of the digital asset]. First, the claim does not establish what the “benchmark iteration of the digital asset” is. In terms of a webpage, this could be the original version of the web page that the operator of Cordasco is interacting with. Second, the claim does not specify “what” about the elements is compared, such as code-based or visual design, such as in Codasco. Third, the claim does not establish the environment in which this “identifying” occurs, such as whether this identifying is during run-time or design-time, such as in Cordasco. A variant in Cordasco could be either the element within a webpage (created with “save” button 327) or the webpage itself (created with “add variant” button 348). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically compare the one or more elements of the digital asset to at least one benchmark iteration of the digital asset” is the identifying of the variants that have been created for web page response to the selection of an element. The user interface identifies the “Home page with No Late fees” variant which pertains to the currently selected element and how it differs from the original (benchmark) webpage. The broadly recited “comparing” is the identifying and displaying of the differences in the variants. Therefore, the rejections in view of Cordasco are maintained.
Further defining the “comparing” or variance/detection to pertain to a runtime/rendering environment and/or what the “benchmark iteration of the digital asset” is, may differentiate from Cordasco. However, Applicant is advised to fully consider the Pertinent Prior Art section below which references prior art that further defines what is compared within digital assets, such as webpages. Of note, Fanning (US 2010/0211893 A1) describes automatically identifying variations in the way different browsers render the same web pages. The renderings would be compared to a static design image (benchmark). A particular UI element can be selected for analysis.
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,naga768 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Fanning (US 2010/00211893 B2) - comparison view of web pages that show rendering errors between versions.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights