DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 11/11/2025 for 18502223. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20-25 are presented.
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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's summary of the telephonic interview conducted 09/25/2025 has been acknowledged and accepted.
In view of Applicant's amendments, the 112 rejection of claims 9 and 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current rejection of record under Manske in view of Naderi in response to the newly amended limitations, including at least connecting an identified DOM element to a data object of a target application as disclosed in Manske [para 0036, 0046, 0065-0068].
Applicant's additional arguments essentially consist of reciting the claim language, copying portions of each reference, and asserting each reference does not disclose the recited claim language, which are not separate arguments for patentability of the claims and amount to mere allegation that the cited prior art references are deficient. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references neither "distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action" nor presents "arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references" as required in Applicant's reply [see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)].
As noted below, the Office Action presents evidence that stands in direct contrast to Applicant's arguments that Manske and Naderi, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the limitation "performing a schema extraction anchoring of the one or more target UI elements by linking the DOM to corresponding types of the one or more relevant UI elements". Claim 1 remains rejected.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remains rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-25 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1 and 11.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "an input element that upon interaction causes a new feature to appear within the page" (claim 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 25 recite the relative term "conventional" which renders the claim indefinite. The term "conventional" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scrolling has been rendered indefinite by the use of "conventional", because it is not possible to determine what type of scrolling would be considered conventional. For application of the prior art of record and for purposes of rejection on its merits, the examiner is going to interpret "near" to mean "[[conventional]] scrolling".
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manske et al. (US 20180095651 A1) in view of Naderi (US 20120054593 A1).
As to claim 1, Manske discloses a method for detecting and automatically filling one or more user interface (UI) elements of a page … on a screen, the method being executed by an interface engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment [Figs. 1, 8, 10, para 0023, 0030, 0034-0036, 0045, fill target data objects (read: elements) in target application part (read: user interface) in web application with reuse platform (read: interface engine) executing as displayed system application], the method comprising:
analyzing, by the interface engine, document object model (DOM) of the page to extract DOM text of one or more relevant UI elements of the one or more UI elements [para 0030-0032, 0043-0046, reuse application searches document object model of target application part in web application for semantic attributes (read: DOM text) of reusable data object (read: relevant UI element) of target application data object (read: UI element)];
performing, by the interface engine, computer vision (CV) analysis to determine one or more types of the one or more relevant UI elements [para 0032, 0048-0049, machine learning algorithm inspects properties (read: types) of reusable data objects in DOM structure, where algorithm identifying property labels is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of computer vision analyzing label data using machine learning per Applicant's specification (para 0086)];
performing a schema extraction anchoring of the one or more target UI elements by linking the DOM to corresponding types of the one or more relevant UI elements [para 0036, 0046, 0065-0068, connect (read: anchor) element identified in DOM structure (read: schema extraction) to target application data object]; and
extrapolating, by the interface engine, one or more target UI elements … of the page from the one or more relevant UI elements [para 0032, 0044-0048, reuse application identifies reusable data object of target application part in web application] and
extracting data from a source to paste into at least the one or more target UI elements… [Figs. 5-7, para 0022, 0027, 0033-0035, 0037, reuse application copies and pastes source attribute value to target application data object].
However, Manske does not specifically disclose one or more user interface (UI) elements of a page that are not visible on a screen; and one or more target UI elements of an invisible region of the page, the invisible region being outside of a web browser window or an interface frame.
Naderi discloses:
one or more user interface (UI) elements of a page that are not visible on a screen [para 0033, 0051, webpage element not currently displayed on system display (read: screen)]; and
one or more target UI elements of an invisible region of the page [para 0033, 0051, 0054-0055, additional form field (read: target UI element) in form not currently displayed (read: invisible region) on webpage],
the invisible region being outside of a web browser window or an interface frame [para 0033, 0051, 0055, 0078, form not currently displayed in visible graphical user interface (read: interface frame) on system display].
Manske and Naderi are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface elements, target user interface elements, and page as disclosed by Manske with user interface elements of a page not visible on a screen, target user interface elements on an invisible region of the page outside of a web browser window or an interface frame as disclosed by Naderi with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Manske as described above to provide a simplified and ergonomic way of filling forms [Naderi, para 0034].
As to claim 2, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method includes linking the DOM text to the one or more target UI elements based on the one or more types and the one or more relevant UI elements as determined by the CV analysis [para 0032, 0063-0071, match DOM semantic attributes to reusable target application data object using properties of reusable objects inspected by algorithm].
As to claim 3, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the extrapolating of the one or more target UI elements by the interface engine comprises searching for similar hypertext markup language (HTML) structures from the DOM [para 0032, 0068-0070, reuse application searches HTML attributes in DOM structure].
As to claim 4, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more UI elements comprises one or more input fields of the page [Fig. 3, para 0034, 0046-0048, target application data object includes entry field of target application part in web application].
As to claim 6, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more types of the one or more relevant UI elements comprise [para 0032, 0068-0071, reuse application searches for reusable data object label in HTML DOM structure, note strikethrough indicates non-selected alternatives].
As to claim 7, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the CV analysis by the interface engine comprises capturing a visible region of the page to identify the one or more types of the one or more relevant UI elements in the visible region [Figs. 2-3, 10, para 0032, 0045-0046, algorithm identifies object label of reusable data object from DOM tree from user interface querying target user interface area displayed in application user interface (read: visible region)].
As to claim 8, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interface engine inputs data into the one or more target UI elements … [Figs. 5-7, para 0022, 0027, 0033-0035, 0037, reuse application copies and pastes source attribute value to target application data object].
However, Manske does not specifically disclose wherein the invisible region of the page comprises a destination form of a subsequent.
Naderi discloses inputting data into the one or more target UI elements without scrolling the page [para 0034, 0038, 0055, fill data in form fields without needing to scroll webpage form].
Manske and Naderi are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify inputting data into target UI elements as disclosed by Manske with inputting data into target UI elements without scrolling a page as disclosed by Naderi with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Manske as described above to provide a simplified and ergonomic way of filling forms [Naderi, para 0034].
As to claim 10, Manske discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Manske does not specifically disclose wherein the invisible region of the page comprises a destination form of a subsequent or destination page.
Naderi discloses wherein the invisible region of the page comprises a destination form of a subsequent or destination page [para 0033-0034, 0078, form with section not currently visible in webpage graphical user interface on system display, note form section requiring scrolling to be visible in graphical user interface falls under broadest reasonable interpretation of destination form including a different interface frame than a current page as consistent with Applicant's specification (para 0143)].
Manske and Naderi are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the page as disclosed by Manske with an invisible region of a page comprising a destination form of a subsequent or destination page as disclosed by Naderi with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Manske as described above to provide a simplified and ergonomic way of filling forms [Naderi, para 0034].
As to claim 11, Manske and Naderi, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose a system comprising: a memory storing code; and at least one processor configured to execute the code to cause within the system [para 0038-0039, 0045-0046, platform includes storage device storing program performed by processor to fill target data objects]: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 12-14, 16-18, and 20, Manske and Naderi, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the system of claim 11 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 21, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein extrapolating of the one or more target UI elements … comprising using a cache to avoid conventional scrolling [para 0032, 0043-0048, reuse application identifies reusable data object of target application part in web application as stored in platform (read: cache), note the limitation "to avoid conventional scrolling" is not being given patentable weight as the term "to" suggests or makes optional and does not require the step to be performed as the limitation is an intended result of the "cache" as recited in the claim (see MPEP 2111.04)].
However, Manske does not specifically disclose the one or more target UI elements of the invisible region.
Naderi discloses the one or more target UI elements of the invisible region [para 0033, 0051, 0054-0055, additional form field (read: target UI element) in form not currently displayed (read: invisible region) on webpage].
Manske and Naderi are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target UI elements as disclosed by Manske with target UI elements of an invisible region as disclosed by Naderi with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Manske as described above to provide a simplified and ergonomic way of filling forms [Naderi, para 0034].
As to claim 22, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein extrapolating of the one or more target UI elements … enables the interface engine to identify and understand what type of off screen elements exist [para 0032, 0043-0048, reuse application identifies reusable data object of target application part in web application, note the limitation "enables the interface engine to identify and understand what type of off screen elements exist" recites functional claim language "enables" that only requires the prior art could be programmed to perform the claimed functionality, thus the prior art device processor discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function (see MPEP 2114)].
However, Manske does not specifically disclose the one or more target UI elements of the invisible region.
Naderi discloses the one or more target UI elements of the invisible region [para 0033, 0051, 0054-0055, additional form field (read: target UI element) in form not currently displayed (read: invisible region) on webpage].
Manske and Naderi are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target UI elements as disclosed by Manske with target UI elements of an invisible region as disclosed by Naderi with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Manske as described above to provide a simplified and ergonomic way of filling forms [Naderi, para 0034].
As to claim 23, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the schema extraction comprises one or more schema elements where each of the one or more schema elements comprises an input element … within the page [para 0036, 0046, 0065-0071, identify DOM attribute (read: schema element) of entry field (read: input element)].
However, Manske does not specifically disclose an input element that upon interaction causes a new feature to appear within the page.
Naderi discloses an input element that upon interaction causes a new feature to appear within the page [Fig. 10, para 0059-0060, navigating drop down field fills value (read: new feature) in electronic form].
Manske and Naderi are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an input element as disclosed by Manske with input element interaction causing a new feature to appear as disclosed by Naderi with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Manske as described above to provide a simplified and ergonomic way of filling forms [Naderi, para 0034].
As to claim 24, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interface engine performs the schema extraction linking the DOM to the corresponding types of the one or more relevant UI elements to generate associations between fields and labels of the page [para 0036, 0046, 0065-0071, connect (read: link) identified DOM structure element to target application data object, note the limitation "to generate associations between fields and labels of the page" is not being given patentable weight as the term "to" suggests or makes optional and does not require the step to be performed as the limitation is an intended result of the "linking" as recited in the claim (see MPEP 2111.04); nevertheless, note algorithm connects identified DOM field attribute to target application including entry field and field label].
As to claim 25, Manske discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interface engine inserts the data into the one or more target UI elements … [Figs. 5-7, para 0022, 0027, 0033-0035, 0037, reuse application pastes source attribute value to target application data object].
However, Manske does not specifically disclose wherein the interface engine inserts the data into the one or more target UI elements of the invisible region without conventional scrolling.
Naderi discloses wherein the interface engine inserts the data into the one or more target UI elements of the invisible region without conventional scrolling [para 0033-0034, 0038, 0054-0055, fill data in form fields (read: target UI elements) without needing to scroll form to section not currently visible requiring scrolling].
Manske and Naderi are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify inserting data into target UI elements as disclosed by Manske with inserting data into target UI elements of an invisible region as disclosed by Naderi with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Manske as described above to provide a simplified and ergonomic way of filling forms [Naderi, para 0034].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jain et al. (US 20250131185 A1) generally discloses robotic process automation using computer vision to automatically fill application forms.
Gligan et al. (US 20210097274 A1) generally discloses a document processing framework for robotic process automation.
Voicu et al. (US 11200073 B1) generally discloses schema extraction anchoring of hidden UI elements to a document object model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172