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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The claim objections to claims 1, 10, and 19 were withdrawn as necessitated by amendment. The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn as necessitated by amendment. New rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103, additionally in view of Barbosa et al have been added below.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/25/2023 were accepted.
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) 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehota et al (US20100205523A1; filed 2/9/2009) in view of Vtyurina et al (Vtyurina, Alexandra, et al. “Bridging Screen Readers and Voice Assistants for Enhanced Eyes-Free Web Search.” The World Wide Web Conference, 13 May 2019, www.adamfourney.com/papers/vtyurina_www2019.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3314136.) and Barbosa et al (US20200159790A1; filed 11/18/2019).
With regards to claim 1, Lehota et al discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by at least one processor of a system of a wireless telecommunications network, cause the system perform actions comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request to view a webpage associated with a telecommunications network (Lehota et al, abstract: “the web application is accessible by the web browser;” telecommunications networks can include cellular communications or the internet, so any web application is associated with a telecommunications network), wherein:
the webpage is associated with source code that describes subject matter of the webpage (Lehota et al, paragraph 4: “web browser… DOM… web application;” paragraph 7: “The objects in the DOM include standard and non-standard objects identified in hypertext markup language (HTML) or extensible markup language (XML) specifications”), the source code including a first set of characters embedded at a beginning of the source code (Lehota et al, paragraph 19: “a hidden link could be provided on the page positioned in such a way that it is visible to screen readers but not visible to sighted users;” paragraph 17: “The following illustrative HTML fragment, inserted at the top level of a web application, enables the accessibility widget in at least one embodiment of the invention”), the first set of characters indicating accessibility requirements and matching a predetermined set of accessibility characters (Lehota et al, paragraph 17: “illustrative HTML fragment… src=“**Widget library config URL goes here**”>… This single call is sufficient to invoke the accessibility widget.” The call to invoke the widget is interpreted as the set of characters), and
causing the user device to present the webpage (Lehota et al, paragraph 9: “the rendered web page”);
receiving, from the user device during a first user session, a first indication that an accessibility engine rendered a first set of content based on the first set of characters (Any “activation” of the accessibility widget can be interpreted as providing the indication; Lehota et al, paragraph 6: “the accessibility widget is activated in response to manual selection of a link, by the screen reader user, that is only viewable using the screen reader;” other activation means are further described in paragraphs 5-6 (automatic based on user profile or cookies)).
However, Lehota et al does not disclose wherein the first set of content enables a user to access to a virtual assistant associated with the telecommunications network by inputting a particular interaction to the user device, wherein the virtual assistant is configured to determine an intent of the user to navigate to a particular section of the webpage using one or more interactions between the user and the webpage, and wherein the virtual assistant is further configured to navigate to the particular section of the webpage using the determined intent; and in response to receiving a second indication that the user device detected the particular interaction, enabling the user device to access to the virtual assistant in a second user session.
Vtyurina et al teaches wherein the first set of content enables a user to access to a virtual assistant associated with the telecommunications network by inputting a particular interaction to the user device,… wherein the virtual assistant is further configured to navigate to the particular section of the webpage… (Vtyurina et al, 3 Verse: “VERSE differs from existing agents in that it enables an additional set of voice commands that allow users to access different online sources and search engine features (such as related searches), as well as to engage more deeply with content for select sources (for example, allowing navigation over a document’s headings).”); in response to receiving a second indication that the user device detected the particular interaction, enabling the user device to access to the virtual assistant in a second user session (Vtyurina et al, 3 Verse: “However, to simplify rapid prototyping, we limited microphone activation to gestures, rather than also allowing activation via keyword spotting (e.g., “Hey Google”). Specifically, microphone activation is implemented as a double-tap gesture performed on a companion device (e.g., smartphone or smartwatch). Although hands-free interaction can be a key functionality for VA users [3], a physical activation is a welcomed ancillary, and at times, a preferred option [1];” The activation of the virtual assistant via the gesture or voice activation is interpreted as the indication for enabling the virtual assistant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al and Vtyurina et al such that virtual assistant navigation could work together with the accessibility assistant. This would have enabled people with visual impairments to better interact with a web page (Vtyurina et al, abstract: “these features allow people with visual impairments to deeply engage with web content through voice interaction”).
Barbosa et al teaches wherein the virtual assistant is configured to determine an intent of the user to navigate to a particular section of the webpage using one or more interactions between the user and the webpage, and… navigate to the particular section of the webpage using the determined intent (Barbosa et al, paragraph 17: “the system supports navigational and transactional queries without leaving the website. For instance, a user's intent may be to complete a transaction such as “pay bill” or go to the contact page when she is already on the website, then all she must do is to enter her intent into the system, and she would be automatically redirected to the page where she could pay her bill.” Note: The determining of the intent “using one or more interactions between the user and the webpage” is interpreted as being taught by Barbosa because the intent input is interpreted as being an interaction between the user and the webpage even if it’s between the user and Barbosa’s user interface, because Barbosa’s user interface is merely an intermediary in the interaction between the user and the website).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, and Barbosa et al such that the user’s intent is used to assist the user in navigation. This would have helped to support the user in achieving higher-level goals (Barbosa et al, paragraph 4: “For example, if the navigation of a website is not structured to support high-level user goals, users may have to browse through multiple web pages and take additional steps to achieve their objectives. Therefore, considering user intent can better assist user interactions with online content”).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Lehota et al does not disclose yet Vtyurina et al teaches receiving a third indication that the user device detected a second interaction; and causing the user device to navigate to a second webpage during the second user session based on the second interaction (Vtyurina et al, 3 Verse: “VERSE differs from existing agents in that it enables an additional set of voice commands that allow users to access different online sources and search engine features (such as related searches), as well as to engage more deeply with content for select sources (for example, allowing navigation over a document’s headings).” The commands are the second interaction(s)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, and Barbosa et al such that virtual assistant navigation could work together with the accessibility assistant to navigate to other web pages. This would have enabled people with visual impairments to better interact with a web page (Vtyurina et al, abstract: “these features allow people with visual impairments to deeply engage with web content through voice interaction”).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Lehota et al does not disclose wherein the first user session and the second user session are the same user session.
However, Vtyurina et al teaches wherein the first user session and the second user session are the same user session (Vtyurina et al, 3 Verse: “VERSE differs from existing agents in that it enables an additional set of voice commands that allow users to access different online sources and search engine features (such as related searches), as well as to engage more deeply with content for select sources (for example, allowing navigation over a document’s headings).” The interactions with the virtual assistant (second user session) are performed while viewing the same web application as the first user session because the virtual assistant interacts with the web page).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, and Barbosa et al such that virtual assistant navigation could work together with the accessibility assistant to navigate the web pages. This would have enabled people with visual impairments to better interact with a web page (Vtyurina et al, abstract: “these features allow people with visual impairments to deeply engage with web content through voice interaction”).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Lehota et al discloses wherein the accessibility engine is one of a screen reader, screen magnifier, braille embosser, desktop video magnifier, or voice recorder (Lehota et al, abstract: “The system includes a screen reader connected to a web browser;” paragraph 1: “a web widget for enabling accessibility for a web application (e.g., for use with a screen reader, or other accessibility applications)”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Lehota et al discloses wherein the source code further includes a second set of characters embedded at the end of the source code, wherein the second set of characters is associated with the first set of content (Lehota et al, paragraph 26: “the HTML page;” all HTML pages that have content have characters at the start and end of the source code, and these characters are interpreted as being “associated” with the first set of content because they are associated with the web page itself).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Lehota et al does not disclose yet Vtyurina et al teaches wherein the virtual assistant is configured to navigate a website associated with the telecommunications network and the website includes the webpage (Vtyurina et al, 3 Verse: “VERSE differs from existing agents in that it enables an additional set of voice commands that allow users to access different online sources and search engine features (such as related searches), as well as to engage more deeply with content for select sources (for example, allowing navigation over a document’s headings).” As noted in the rejection to claim 1, all websites and their corresponding webpages that are accessible over the internet are interpreted as being “associated with” a telecommunications network).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, and Barbosa et al such that virtual assistant navigation could work together with the accessibility assistant to navigate the web pages. This would have enabled people with visual impairments to better interact with a web page (Vtyurina et al, abstract: “these features allow people with visual impairments to deeply engage with web content through voice interaction”).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Lehota et al does not disclose yet Vtyurina et al teaches wherein the particular interaction is associated with a sequence of keyboard inputs, a touch-based input, audio input, or a haptic input captured at the user device (Vtyurina et al, Table 2: Activation gesture for activating Verse, the virtual assistant, is a double tap with two fingers (touch-based input); it could also be interpreted that the voice commands (also in Table 2) used to interact with the virtual assistant are associated with the interaction because they are enabled in response to the interaction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, and Barbosa et al such that virtual assistant navigation could work together with the accessibility assistant to navigate the web pages. This would have enabled people with visual impairments to better interact with a web page (Vtyurina et al, abstract: “these features allow people with visual impairments to deeply engage with web content through voice interaction”).
Claims 10-16 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-7 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claims 19-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-2 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehota et al in view of Vtyurina et al and Barbosa et al, and further in view of Blumenberg et al (US20080259041A1; filed 1/5/2007)
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Lehota et al discloses wherein the source code of the webpage includes… (Lehota et al, paragraph 7: “The objects in the DOM include standard and non-standard objects identified in hypertext markup language (HTML) or extensible markup language (XML) specifications. The standard and non-standard objects include a link…”).
However, Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, and Barbosa et al do not disclose a hyperlink to a second webpage.
Blumenberg et al teaches a hyperlink to a second webpage (Blumenberg et al, paragraph 4: “getting information about the hyperlinks and navigating to other webpages via the hyperlinks”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, Barbosa et al, and Blumenberg et al such that the web page includes hyperlinks that link to other webpages. This would have enabled users to navigate to other webpages from that webpage (Blumenberg et al, paragraph 4: “navigating to other webpages via the hyperlinks”).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, and Barbosa et al do not disclose wherein the second webpage is associated with a product of the telecommunications network referenced in the source code of the webpage.
Blumenberg et al teaches wherein the second webpage is associated with a product of the telecommunications network referenced in the source code of the webpage (Blumenberg et al, paragraph 4: “getting information about the hyperlinks and navigating to other webpages via the hyperlinks;” as noted earlier, a telecommunications network can simply be interpreted as the internet, while a product of the internet could be interpreted as a webpage or website. Since the source code of the website has a hyperlink to the second webpage, the second webpage (the product) is referenced in the source code of the webpage).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Lehota et al, Vtyurina et al, Barbosa et al, and Blumenberg et al such that the web page includes hyperlinks that link to other webpages. This would have enabled users to navigate to other webpages from that webpage (Blumenberg et al, paragraph 4: “navigating to other webpages via the hyperlinks”).
Claims 17-18 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 8-9 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 19, and the claims dependent on them, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on only the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the previously cited art fails to teach (1) a virtual assistant determining a user's intent to navigate to a particular section of a webpage and (2) the virtual assistant using the intent to navigate to a specific section of a webpage. Examiner agrees with both of these arguments, but upon additional search and consideration has updated the rejections to further depend on Barbosa et al. In combination with Lehota et al and Vtyurina et al, Barbosa et al teaches determining a user’s intent for navigating a webpage. Thus the combination of these arts teach the limitations of the claims as amended, and the arguments are not persuasive.
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 BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights