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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 1/3/24, 1/30/24 and 7/22/25 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for all figures, the lines, labels and text are blurry/hard to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 37 CFR 1.84(l) requires that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Missing period punctuation at the end of claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079.
Regarding claim 1, Saurabh discloses a method of providing and relocating overlay elements in real time within a digital adoption platform used in conjunction with an underlying computer application, the method comprising the steps of:
loading a page of an underlying application (Saurabh, para [0051], [0053-59], specifically paragraphs [0051] and [0056], renders application page);
loading a digital adoption program (DAP) which is configured to provide a user with guidance in using the underlying application (Saurabh, para [0098-99], determining and rendering guidance content represents loading a digital adoption program);
using the DAP to:
identify a plurality of selected elements (Saurabh, para [0028, 30-31], identifying a user context, identifying an application context, and identifying a lifecycle stage associated with the user based on selected guided scenario), wherein the selected elements are visible components of a user interface of the underlying application (Saurabh, para [0060], controls for scenarios are rendered using a template);
create and display a plurality of overlay elements over the user interface (Saurabh, para [0031-32], with regards to fig 2-4, within overlay 210, it contains 4 dots (marked as element 330 in fig 3 but shown in fig 2-4 based on step) indicating the step within the scenario. At the first step the first dot is filled in, as shown in figure 2), each of the plurality of overlay elements being associated with and displayed visibly adjacent to a corresponding one of the plurality of selected elements, but placed in an independent location in the code from the corresponding selected element (Saurabh, para [0031-32], with regards to fig 2-4, overlay elements 330 adjacent to selected elements 220, 320, 430, etc.);
detect changes that visibly affect the display of the selected elements (Saurabh, para [0032], based on the progress of the steps, visibly change the circle element filled from the first circle to the second circle shown in fig 3); and
change the display of one or more of the plurality of overlay elements based on changes detected in the detecting step so that the overlay elements visibly match the changes to the selected elements (Saurabh, para [0032], based on the progress of the steps, visibly change the circle element filled from the second circle to the third circle shown in fig 4).
Regarding claim 2, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh additionally discloses wherein the change to the display of the one or more overlay elements comprises one or more of hiding, unhiding, moving and scaling the overly element (Saurabh, para [0031-32], overlay “Add a new lead” which elements are displayed is moved based on context step and what template element it is pointing to, this is shown in figures 2-7).
Regarding claim 7, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh additionally discloses wherein the overlay element is placed in the same window as the selected element (Saurabh, with regards to fig 5, overlay 510 within window 440).
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of Ray United States Patent Application Publication US 2007/0204239.
Regarding claim 3, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Ray discloses wherein the detect changes step comprises checking whether one of the selected elements is visible, and if not, then removing the associated overlay element in the change the display step (Ray, para [0039], with regards to fig 5, element 510 and 512, when a user navigates away from a selectable portion of a display page the corresponding overlay ceases to display, interpreted as a removal).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display of overlays to include ceasing display based on context. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce confusion and display of irrelevant data (Ray, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Ray discloses wherein the detect changes step comprises checking whether one of the selected elements is still attached to the page, and if not, then removing the associated overlay element completely in the change the display step (Ray, para [0039], with regards to fig 5, element 510 and 512, when a user navigates away from a selectable portion of a display page the corresponding overlay ceases to display, interpreted as a removal).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display of overlays to include ceasing display based on context. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce confusion and display of irrelevant data (Ray, para [0002]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of Bruce United States Patent Application Publication US 2020/0035113.
Regarding claim 4, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Bruce discloses wherein the detect changes step comprises checking whether one of the selected elements is overlapped by another element on the page, and if so, then hiding the associated overlay element in the change the display step until such time as the overlapping element fades away or disappears (Bruce, para [0007, 28], an instruction window can be an overlay that is designed to “hide from” or avoid obscuring application content of particular interest to a user).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the overlay display to include the rules of Bruce. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce “focus shifting” (Bruce, para [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Bruce discloses wherein the detect changes step comprises checking a position of one of the selected elements, and if the selected element has moved from an initial position, then obtaining a new position and moving the overlay element to the new position in the change the display step (Bruce, para [0007, 28], an instruction window can be an overlay that is designed to “hide from” or avoid obscuring application content of particular interest to a user)
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the overlay display to include the rules of Bruce. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce “focus shifting” (Bruce, para [0006]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of JOHNS United States Patent Application Publication US 2016/0028743.
Regarding claim 8, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. JOHNS discloses wherein if the selected element is within an inline frame (iframe) and the size of the iframe is too small to accommodate the overlay element without inducing a scroll bar, the overlay element is placed in a topframe window (JOHNS, para [0129], defines minimum values for width and height for widget; JOHNS, para [0049], widget encompassed in frame is an iframe).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include minimum frame size. The motivation for doing so would have been element visibility (JOHNS, para [0128]).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of Shibukawa United States Patent Application Publication US2011/0016403.
Regarding claim 9, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Shibukawa discloses wherein coordinates of the selected element may be calculated from a top and left corner of a window containing the selected element (Shibukawa, para [0080], coordinates start at top left).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include analyzing based on coordinates. The motivation for doing so would have been a way to browse and update a display with multiple screen sizes (Shibukawa, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Saurabh in view of Shibukawa discloses the method of claim 9. Shibukawa additionally discloses wherein the overlay element is placed with Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) coding with absolute positioning using the coordinates calculated for the selected element (Shibukawa, para [75 and 158], CSS used for positioning and styling).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include analyzing based on coordinates. The motivation for doing so would have been a way to browse and update a display with multiple screen sizes (Shibukawa, para [0002]).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of Mischook United States Patent Application Publication US 2013/0198607.
Regarding claim 11, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Mischook discloses wherein messages are passed from an inline frame (iframe) containing the selected element to a frame containing the overlay element, and wherein all the messages are sent using HTML5 postMessage (Mischook, para [0093-94], postmessage function using HTML5).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include the message transmission and display of Mischook. The motivation for doing so would have been an improved system for modifying webpage data which is for receipt by a browser (Mischook, para [0001]).
Regarding claim 12, Saurabh in view of Mischook discloses the method of claim 11. Mischook additionally discloses wherein a top window processes the message and takes appropriate action for displaying the overlay element (Mischook, para [0134], overlay).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include the message transmission and display of Mischook. The motivation for doing so would have been an improved system for modifying webpage data which is for receipt by a browser (Mischook, para [0001]).
Claim(s) 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of Lemonik United States Patent Application Publication US 2011/0252304.
Regarding claim 13, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Lemonik discloses wherein the detect changes step is configured to detect movement of at least one of the selected elements (Lemonik, para [0068], periodically checks modifications of elements).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include detecting changes. The motivation for doing so would have been provide flexibility in displaying webpages (Lemonik, para [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Saurabh in view of Lemonik discloses the method of claim 13. Lemonik additionally discloses wherein the movement detection is based on checking for changes in the page or based on periodic timers (Lemonik, para [0068], periodically checks modifications of elements).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include detecting changes. The motivation for doing so would have been provide flexibility in displaying webpages (Lemonik, para [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Saurabh in view of Lemonik discloses the method of claim 14. Lemonik additionally discloses wherein a method of movement detection is determined by whether a number of selected elements exceeds a predetermined number (Lemonik, para [0068], changes made based on user activity, interpreted as at least 1).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include detecting changes. The motivation for doing so would have been provide flexibility in displaying webpages (Lemonik, para [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Saurabh in view of Lemonik discloses the method of claim 15. Lemonik additionally discloses wherein the predetermined number is between 1 and 50 (Lemonik, para [0068], changes made based on user activity, interpreted as at least 1).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include detecting changes. The motivation for doing so would have been provide flexibility in displaying webpages (Lemonik, para [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Saurabh in view of Lemonik discloses the method of claim 14. Lemonik additionally discloses wherein the movement detection is executed every 500 milliseconds to observe changes to the selected elements, and change the position of the overlay elements accordingly with a periodic relocation algorithm (Lemonik, para [0068], periodically checks modifications of elements, every 500 milliseconds).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include detecting changes. The motivation for doing so would have been provide flexibility in displaying webpages (Lemonik, para [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Lemonik discloses wherein the DAP further comprises a scroll listener added on to at least one of the selected elements and configured to detect whenever the selected element is scrolled (Lemonik, para [0023], listens to inputs; Lemonik, para [0074], scroll interaction described).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include detecting changes. The motivation for doing so would have been provide flexibility in displaying webpages (Lemonik, para [0004]).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of Lemonik United States Patent Application Publication US 2011/0252304 in further view of Mendez United States Patent Application Publication US2015/0149916.
Regarding claim 18, Saurabh in view of Lemonik discloses the method of claim 17. Saurabh in view of Lemonik does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 17. Mendez discloses wherein the periodic relocation algorithm is run at each of a plurality of inline frame (iframe) levels (Mendez, para [0060, 81], Javascript running represents an algorithm. Webpage can contain iframes).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include the claimed functionality. The motivation for doing so would have been functionality for information sharing (Mendez, para [0002]).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0189079 in view of Mendez United States Patent Application Publication US2015/0149916.
Regarding claim 19, Saurabh discloses the method of claim 1. Saurabh does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim. Mendez discloses wherein the DAP further comprises a mutation observer interface configured to watch for changes being made to a Document Object Model (DOM) tree (Mendez, para [0010, 38 and 61], DOM tree observer).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display to include the claimed functionality. The motivation for doing so would have been functionality for information sharing (Mendez, para [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOPE C SHEFFIELD whose telephone number is (303)297-4265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00pm PT.
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.
/HOPE C SHEFFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
