DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on March 02, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-10, 11 and 13-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 16 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
The objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 13-15, 19, and 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 1, 11 and 20 are maintained in view of the Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims and further explained hereinafter.
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 .
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, 6-8, 10-12, 16, 17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190042397 (hereinafter “VIGNESH”) in view of US 20220121723 (hereinafter “Page”).
As per Claim 1, VIGNESH discloses:
A device for accessibility testing of digital interfaces, the device comprising:
a memory (Figure 9: 915) coupled to a processor (Figure 9: 905), the memory storing computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
provide a digital interface in a browser (Paragraph [0025], “FIG. 2 shows user interface 200 associated with a web page, according to one embodiment. The user interface 200 associated with the web page of a web application is displayed in a browser [provide a digital interface in a browser] (emphasis added).”);
receive input identifying at least one element of the digital interface and a location of the identified at least one element (Paragraph [0031], “FIG. 6 shows user interface 600 with results of accessibility test displayed, according to one embodiment. As explained in FIG. 5B, when a user clicks or selects a link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element is highlighted in the webpage as shown in the user interface 600 [receive input identifying at least one element of the digital interface and a location of the identified at least one element] (emphasis added).”);
based on the identified at least one element, navigate a dataset of testing to identify accessibility testing associated with the identified at least one element (Paragraph [0021], “The automation unit 110 reads DOM elements, and identifies a set of UI elements in the webpage for which accessibility rules can be applied, and second set of UI elements for which screenshot can he captured and image-processing may be performed.[ based on the identified at least one element, navigate a dataset of testing to identify accessibility testing associated with the identified at least one element](emphasis added)”);
in a first instance, […] generate overlay elements for automatically detected elements of the digital interface (Paragraph [0025], “FIG. 2 shows user interface 200 associated with a web page, according to one embodiment. The user interface 200 associated with the web page of a web application is displayed in a browser (emphasis added).”); Paragraph [0031], “As explained in FIG. 5B, when a user clicks or selects a link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element is highlighted in the webpage as shown in the user interface 600. If a solution corresponding to the element is available in the report 500, the solution is also displayed in the webpage in a popup window at a proximity to the UI element [in a first instance, […] generate overlay elements for automatically detected elements of the digital interface] (emphasis added)”); and
in a second instance, […] and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element (Paragraph [0031], “As explained in FIG. 5B, when a user clicks or selects a link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element is highlighted in the webpage as shown in the user interface 600. If a solution corresponding to the element is available in the report 500, the solution is also displayed in the webpage in a popup window at a proximity to the UI element [in a second instance, […] and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element] (emphasis added)”). [Examiner’s remarks: “Note that “Vignesh” discloses that after the user clicks or selects the link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element will be automatically highlighted in the webpage, and then the solution will be displayed in a popup window automatically. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would comprehend that the process for highlighting the identified UI element automatically and displaying the solution in a popup window automatically can be reasonably interpreted as “overlay elements for automatically detected elements” and “additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element,” In additional, since Vignesh already discloses the “overlay elements”, it also discloses “additional overlay elements”, and it is not necessary to distinguish between them.”]
VIGNESH discloses “browser” and “accessibility testing,” but VIGNESH does not explicitly discloses:
[…], implement the at least one predefined routine of the browser […];
edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location; and
[…], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […].
However, Page discloses:
[…], implement the at least one predefined routine of the browser […] (Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute to the accessibility testing code incorporated in the HTML and/or DOM [implement the at least one predefined routine of the browser] (emphasis added)”);
edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location (Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute the testing code to perform accessibility testing on the page or pages of the website. In some embodiments, the testing code is configured to modify the HTML and/or DOM to incorporate accessibility testing code into the HTML and/or DOM [ edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location] (emphasis added)”); and [Examiner’s remarks: “Note that Page discloses that web pages associated with the generated URLs and perform accessibility tests on each of the one or more URLs. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that configured the testing code and perform the accessibility testing on the URLs can be reasonably interpreted as the claimed “edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location”.”]
- […], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […] (Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute to the accessibility testing code incorporated in the HTML and/or DOM [ […], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […]] (emphasis added)”).
VIGNESH and Page are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Page into the teaching of VIGNESH to include “[…], implement the at least one predefined routine of the browser […]; edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location; and […], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […]” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to evaluate the level of compliance with web accessibility standards (Page, paragraph [0008]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of VIGNESH and Page discloses “the at least one predefined routine,” and VIGNESH further discloses:
[…] automatically identifies elements in the digital interface for accessibility testing (Paragraph [0019], FIG. 1 is block diagram illustrating architecture 100 of accessibility testing software automation tool, according to one embodiment (emphasis added); Paragraph [0021], “The automation unit 110 reads DOM elements, and identifies a set of UI elements in the webpage for which accessibility rules can be applied [automatically identifies elements in the digital interface for accessibility testing](emphasis added)”.).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of VIGNESH and Page discloses “the at least one predefined routine,” and VIGNESH further discloses:
[…] generates overlay elements that are displayed for elements in the digital interface, and the generated overlay elements indicate results of accessibility testing (Paragraph [0025], “Accessibility rules may be applied on the captured images in an image-processing unit. After performing accessibility testing, the result of the test is generated as a report as shown in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B [results of accessibility testing] (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0031], “If a solution corresponding to the element is available in the report 500, the solution is also displayed in the webpage in a popup window at a proximity to the UI element [generates overlay elements that are displayed for elements in the digital interface, and the generated overlay elements indicate results of accessibility testing](emphasis added)”.).
As per claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and VIGNESH discloses “the generated overlay elements,” but VIGNESH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the generated overlay elements are keyboard navigable.
However, Page discloses:
[…] keyboard navigable (Paragraph [0054], “In some embodiments, keyboard users may be able to use standard keys, such as tab or any other key or combination of keys, to navigate through the remediated page, regardless of whether a screen reader or other assistive technology is being utilized, reaping the benefits of the applied DOM manipulations [wherein the generated overlay elements are keyboard navigable] (emphasis added)”).
Page is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Page into the teaching of VIGNESH to include “wherein the generated overlay elements are keyboard navigable.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adding keyboard navigation for users to provide user interaction to help the process of accessibility testing.
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of VIGNESH and Page discloses “edited at least one predefined routine,” and VIGNESH further discloses:
generate a report based on a result […] (Paragraph [0025], “After performing accessibility testing, the result of the test is generated as a report as shown in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B [generate a report based on a result of the edited at least one predefined routine] (emphasis added).”)
Claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 21 are method claims corresponding to the device claims hereinabove (Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10 and 6, respectively). Therefore, Claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10 and 6 respectively.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to the device claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per Claim 22, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and VIGNESH does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the predefined routine is configured to perform remediation.
However, Page discloses:
wherein the predefined routine is configured to perform remediation (Paragraph [0049], “In some embodiments, programmatically fixing non-compliance issues may be done by, for example, querying a database of remediations and/or applying remediate code that is included in the accessibility test code (emphasis added)”); Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute the testing code to perform accessibility testing on the page or pages of the website. In some embodiments, the testing code is configured to modify the HTML and/or DOM to incorporate accessibility testing code into the HTML and/or DOM [wherein the predefined routine is configured to perform remediation] (emphasis added)”);
Page is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Page into the teaching of VIGNESH to include “wherein the predefined routine is configured to perform remediation” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable the browser to remediate at least one of the detected one or more compliance issues in the web page loaded by the user computing system (Page, paragraph [0019]).
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGNESH in view of Page as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 20240104004 (hereinafter “S”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of VIGNESH and Page does not explicitly disclose:
receive a request for accessibility requirements associated with one or more elements of digital user interfaces; and
in response to the request, navigate a dataset of accessibility parameters to identify associated accessibility requirements, the dataset of accessibility parameters including element identities used to navigate the dataset of testing to identify associated (1) accessibility testing, and (2) predefined routines.
However, S discloses:
receive a request for accessibility requirements associated with one or more elements of digital user interfaces (Paragraph [0003], “The test case includes a plurality of tests, and the test case is configured to test, for the application, compliance with a plurality of accessibility requirements (emphasis added)”; Paragraph [0042], “For example, the one or more instructions and/or commands may include a request to generate a test event for one or more applications-under-test, selection of one or more test cases for execution corresponding to the one or more applications-under-test, selection of one or more tests for testing the accessibility of the applications-under test as part of execution of a test case [receive a request for accessibility requirements associated with one or more elements of digital user interfaces](emphasis added)”.); and
in response to the request, navigate a dataset of accessibility parameters to identify associated accessibility requirements, the dataset of accessibility parameters including element identities used to navigate the dataset of testing to identify associated (1) accessibility testing, and (2) predefined routines (Paragraph [0003], “The test case includes a plurality of tests, and the test case is configured to test, for the application, compliance with a plurality of accessibility requirements (emphasis added); Paragraph [0042], “For example, the one or more instructions and/or commands may include a request to generate a test event for one or more applications-under-test, selection of one or more test cases for execution corresponding to the one or more applications-under-test, selection of one or more tests for testing the accessibility of the applications-under test as part of execution of a test case [in response to the request, navigate a dataset of accessibility parameters to identify associated accessibility requirements, the dataset of accessibility parameters including element identities used to navigate the dataset of testing to identify associated (1) accessibility testing, and (2) predefined routines](emphasis added).”).
S is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of S into the combined teachings of VIGNESH and Page to include “receive a request for accessibility requirements associated with one or more elements of digital user interfaces; and in response to the request, navigate a dataset of accessibility parameters to identify associated accessibility requirements, the dataset of accessibility parameters including element identities used to navigate the dataset of testing to identify associated (1) accessibility testing, and (2) predefined routines.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine compliance of the one or more applications, such as one or more applications-under-test, for compliance with a plurality of accessibility requirements (S, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and VIGNESH discloses “browser” but the combination of VIGNESH and S does not explicitly disclose:
incorporate the identified predefined routines into the browser.
However, Page discloses:
incorporate the identified predefined routines into the [website] (Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the testing code is configured to modify the HTML and/or DOM to incorporate accessibility testing code into the HTML and/or DOM [incorporate the identified predefined routines into the website] (emphasis added).”).
Page is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Page into the combined teachings of VIGNESH and S to include “incorporate the identified predefined routines into the browser.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to evaluate the level of compliance with web accessibility standards (Page, paragraph [0008]).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of VIGNESH and Page does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the request identifies element types associated with the one or more elements, and the dataset of accessibility requirements determines associated accessibility requirements based on a comparison between the identified element types and predefined types of elements.
However, S discloses:
wherein the request identifies element types associated with the one or more elements, and the dataset of accessibility requirements determines associated accessibility requirements based on a comparison between the identified element types and predefined types of elements (Paragraph [0062], “For example, the contrast ratio test can be automatically tested. In other words, the test controller 110 may read one or more CS S/color properties of the controls on the screen of the application-under-test and compares the color properties against the background according to the accessibility requirements [wherein the request identifies element types associated with the one or more elements, and the dataset of accessibility requirements determines associated accessibility requirements based on a comparison between the identified element types and predefined types of elements](emphasis added)”).
S is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of S into the combined teachings of VIGNESH and Page to include “wherein the request identifies element types associated with the one or more elements, and the dataset of accessibility requirements determines associated accessibility requirements based on a comparison between the identified element types and predefined types of elements.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine compliance of the one or more applications, such as one or more applications-under-test, for compliance with a plurality of accessibility requirements (S, paragraph [0045]).
Claims 13-15 are method claims corresponding to the device claims hereinabove (Claims 3-5, respectively). Therefore, Claims 13-15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 3-5, respectively.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGNESH in view of Page as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of US 20120254292 (hereinafter “Newton”).
As per claim 9, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and VIGNESH discloses “overlay elements” and the combination of VIGNESH and Page discloses “the at least one predefined routine,” but the combination of VIGNESH and Page does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one predefined routine generates an additional overlay element to remove the overlay elements from the digital interface without refreshing.
However, Newton discloses:
[…] generates an additional [user interface] element to remove the [user interface] elements from the digital interface without refreshing (Paragraph [0058], “For example, partial updating may occur in a frame of the user interface, wherein, the frame contents are loaded and/or unloaded independent of other frames in the web page, such as the types of frames described in association with FIG. 5A-B (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0063], “Similarly, the partial refresher module 388 can detect, in the response, elements removed from the set of elements previously received and deleting the elements from the user interface for the web page to reflect removal from the set of elements without refreshing other elements in the set of elements in the user interface (e.g., by the updating module 398). The removed elements may be detected by element removal detector 396 [ generates an additional [user interface] element to remove the [user interface] elements from the digital interface without refreshing] (emphasis added).”).
Newton is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Newton into the combined teachings of VIGNESH and Page to include “wherein the at least one predefined routine generates an additional overlay element to remove the overlay elements from the digital interface without refreshing.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user to interact with a user interface without the entire screen being refreshed every time one or a few values need to be updated, creating an unpleasant or inconvenient user experience. (Newton, paragraph [0022]).
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to the device claim hereinabove (Claim 9). Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
a) Firstly, the Examiner alleges that the above paragraph [0031] discloses “receiv[ing] input identifying at least one element of the digital interface and a location of the identified at least one element.” Application respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in this passage of Vignesh that refers to “input identifying … a location of the identified at least one element”, as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20.
Secondly, the Examiner alleges that, in view of paragraph [0031], it follows that “Vignesh further discloses: in a first instance, […] generate overlay elements for automatically detected elements …; and in a second instance, […] generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element” (page 29 of the Office Action). Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0031] of Vignesh refers to “a popup window” which is displayed if a solution corresponding to a UI element is available in the report 500. Nowhere does Vignesh distinguish between “overlay elements for automatically detected elements” and “additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element”, as recited in the amended claims. Accordingly, Vignesh does not teach or suggest “in a first instance, implement[ing] at least one predefined routine of the browser to generate overlay elements for automatically detected elements of the digital interface” and “in a second instance, implement[ing] the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element”, as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20 as amended.
(See Remarks – page 5, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, with respect to the Applicant’s assertion that Vignesh at least fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “overlay elements for automatically detected elements” and “additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element,” the Examiner respectively submits that Vignesh discloses “overlay elements for automatically detected elements” and “additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element,” (Paragraph [0031], “As explained in FIG. 5B, when a user clicks or selects a link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element is highlighted in the webpage as shown in the user interface 600. If a solution corresponding to the element is available in the report 500, the solution is also displayed in the webpage in a popup window at a proximity to the UI element [“overlay elements for automatically detected elements” and “additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element,”] (emphasis added)”). Note that “Vignesh” discloses that after the user clicks or selects the link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element will be automatically highlighted in the webpage, and then the solution will be displayed in a popup window automatically. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would comprehend that the process for highlighting the identified UI element automatically and displaying the solution in a popup window automatically can be reasonably interpreted as “overlay elements for automatically detected elements” and “additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element,” In additional, since Vignesh already discloses the “overlay elements”, it also discloses “additional overlay elements”, and it is not necessary to distinguish between them.
Third, Vignesh discloses “in a first instance, […] generate overlay elements for automatically detected elements of the digital interface” (Paragraph [0025], “FIG. 2 shows user interface 200 associated with a web page, according to one embodiment. The user interface 200 associated with the web page of a web application is displayed in a browser (emphasis added).”); Paragraph [0031], “As explained in FIG. 5B, when a user clicks or selects a link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element is highlighted in the webpage as shown in the user interface 600. If a solution corresponding to the element is available in the report 500, the solution is also displayed in the webpage in a popup window at a proximity to the UI element [in a first instance, […] generate overlay elements for automatically detected elements of the digital interface] (emphasis added)”); “and in a second instance, […] and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element” (Paragraph [0031], “As explained in FIG. 5B, when a user clicks or selects a link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element is highlighted in the webpage as shown in the user interface 600. If a solution corresponding to the element is available in the report 500, the solution is also displayed in the webpage in a popup window at a proximity to the UI element [in a second instance, […] and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element] (emphasis added)”).
Page discloses “[…], implement the at least one predefined routine of the browser […]” (Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute to the accessibility testing code incorporated in the HTML and/or DOM [implement the at least one predefined routine] (emphasis added)”); “and […], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […]” (Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute to the accessibility testing code incorporated in the HTML and/or DOM [[…], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […]] (emphasis added)”). Thus, as a combination, Vignesh and Page disclose “in a first instance, implement[ing] at least one predefined routine of the browser to generate overlay elements for automatically detected elements of the digital interface” and “in a second instance, implement[ing] the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element”.
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claims 1, 11 and 20 are proper.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
b) Page describes systems and methods for identifying accessibility issues in websites and remediating website accessibility issues. Paragraph [0233] is cited by the Examiner as allegedly disclosing “edit[ing] at least one predefined routine of the browser to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location.”
Page teaches that accessibility testing code can be incorporated into the HTML and/or DOM. However, the claim feature at issue is “edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location” (emphasis added), where “the location” refers, by antecedent basis, to “a location of the identified at least one element.” There is nothing in the above passage that refers to “location”, let alone “location of the identified at least one element.” It follows that Page fails to teach or suggest “edit[ing] the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location [of the identified at least one element]”, as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20 as amended. Nor does Page teach or suggest “in a second instance, implement[ing] the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element”, as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20 as amended.
(See Remarks – page 6-7, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
b) Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, with respect to the Applicant’s assertion that the proposed Vignesh-Page combination at least fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location”, the Examiner respectively submits Page discloses “edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location”(Paragraph [0009] […] dynamically crawl, using a configuration file, the one or more web sites or user interfaces to generate a list of uniform resource locators (URLs) to be included as part of a compliance assessment of the one or more web sites or user interfaces; evaluate each of the one or more web pages associated with the generated list of URLs to identify one or more compliance issues, […] [the location] (emphasis added)”); Paragraph [0016], […] for example, using a headless browser, the one or more URLs; perform the one or more accessibility tests on each of the one or more URLs to generate testing data (emphasis added)”); Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute the testing code to perform accessibility testing on the page or pages of the website. In some embodiments, the testing code is configured to modify the HTML and/or DOM to incorporate accessibility testing code into the HTML and/or DOM [ edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location] (emphasis added)”); Note that Page discloses that web pages associated with the generated URLs and perform accessibility tests on each of the one or more URLs. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that configured the testing code and perform the accessibility testing on the URLs can be reasonably interpreted as the claimed “edit the at least one predefined routine to incorporate the identified accessibility testing to the location”.
Third, Vignesh discloses “in a second instance, […] and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element” (Paragraph [0031], “As explained in FIG. 5B, when a user clicks or selects a link in UI element ID in report 500, the corresponding UI element is highlighted in the webpage as shown in the user interface 600. If a solution corresponding to the element is available in the report 500, the solution is also displayed in the webpage in a popup window at a proximity to the UI element [in a second instance, […] and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element] (emphasis added)”).
Page discloses “[…], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […]” (Paragraph [0233], “In some embodiments, the web browser is configured to execute to the accessibility testing code incorporated in the HTML and/or DOM [ […], implement the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element […]] (emphasis added)”). Vignesh already discloses “the identified at least one element”, so Page does not need to disclose the same elements. Thus, as a combination, Vignesh and Page disclose “in a second instance, implement[ing] the edited at least one predefined routine to test accessibility of the identified at least one element and to generate additional overlay elements for the identified at least one element”.
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claims 1, 11 and 20 are proper.
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 Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights