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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 4 January 2026
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
The art rejections as disclosed in the previous office action has been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…preprocess nodes and sub-nodes of said component trees to determine relationships between components. However, Claim 1 already introduced “said component trees having nodes… and sub-nodes…components” in the previous limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “nodes and sub-nodes of said component trees” and “components” of Claim 1 should depend on “said component tress having nodes… and sub-nodes…components” of Claim 1 or each should viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “…preprocess the nodes and the sub-nodes of said component trees to determine relationships between the components”.
Claim 10 recites similar limitation(s)/element(s) with similar issue(s) and is rejected under similar rationale .
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said respective component tree" in the multiple comparers limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “…wherein said relationships comprise a defined linear order among the components at a containment level of said component trees”
Claim 10 recites similar limitation(s)/element(s) with similar issue(s) and is rejected under similar rationale
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…compare… sub-nodes of said component trees” in the multiple comparers limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced “said component trees having … sub-nodes…” in the previous limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “sub-nodes of said component trees” of Claim 1 should depend on “said component tress having …sub-nodes…” of Claim 1 or should viewed as new element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “…then comparing said nodes and said sub-nodes of said component trees”
Claim 10 recites similar limitation(s)/element(s) with similar issue(s) and is rejected under similar rationale.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 20140250360, filed 5/28/2004)* in further view of Kanevsky (US 6300947, 2001) (* = Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/8/24)
As per independent claim 1, Jiang discloses a device comprising:
Processor (claim 1, 46: processor implemented, executing on processor based computer)
a component based version comparer (CBV) running on said at least one processor to create a difference tree to represent differences between component trees representing at least two individually modified versions of a website page, said component trees having nodes to represent components of said website page and sub- nodes to represent components inside a container component, said CBV comparer to generate a merged version of said website page from said difference tree (FIG 1, 2A, 2F, 3A-C; 0022-32, 0034-37, 0045, 0052, 0050-0056: compares two separately modified versions of a website (HTML/XML document; herein as “document”) based on comparing the component tree of nodes/subnodes (hierarchy made up of nodes/subnodes) of each of inputted separate modified version of the documents. 0052 explicitly states (each of) the modified versions are independently created by one or more users. It is implicit each of the separate modified document has at least one page. Furthermore, each separate modified version of the document has components. Each separate modified version of the document is arranged in a DOM(Document Object Model) format which is a hierarchical node tree structure. The DOM discloses relationships between parent objects and child objects and which parent/child objects are in common with each other. Parent and child objects of the DOM can be viewed as nodes and sub-nodes. Furthermore, each separate modified version of the document is arranged in a tree structure comprising nodes wherein the nodes (and sub-nodes) of the tree represents the parent and child objects of that version of the document, wherein the parent and child objects are the nodes/components and sub-nodes of the tree, respectfully. The components can be visual components(visual elements implemented in HTML) and containers(the container being the entire HTML body or XML body). Thus, Jiang discloses a component tree for each of the individually modified versions of a document which each tree represents the nodes and subnodes of a particular separate modified version of the documents. Furthermore, two individually modified versions of a document are compared by their DOM/component trees(e.g. Abstract, 0046) resulting in a difference tree being generated and displayed showing the differences between the two separate modified document versions in a display utility(Fig 1 (120); FIG 2A (120)). The display utility will show what kind of changes were made in the two different documents such as what was deleted, what was added, and what was changed. See this in Fig. 2F and 3A-C and 0034. The generated difference tree is used to merge the different separately modified versions of the document resulting in an integrated version (updated/merged document) of the website (document). This integrated version will be shown by the display utility or engine – see (Fig. 2F and 3B and 3C). The user also has the ability to further edit the updated/merged document by accepting some or none of the merged changes))
multiple comparers configured to preprocess nodes and sub-nodes of said component trees to determine relationships between components thereof according to at least one of: their structure, semantic relationships, and editing history; said multiple comparers to compare the nodes and sub- nodes of said component trees based on said determined relationships(0022-0025, 0028, 0033: Jiang first identifies/preprocesses the components in each of the (inputted) separated modified version of the website to determine the internal relationships of the components (in that particular separated modified version). This is done by creating a DOM tree with parent-child nodes for each of the separated modified versions of the documents through the DOM Conversion Engine, and by doing that the system is determining the relationships of the nodes aka components and sub-nodes for each separated modified version of the document. Once these relationships for each version are determined, then the Comparing Engine will compare the DOMs of both of the inputted separated modified versions of the documents using analysis – by looking at the information about the nodes of the DOM, based on structure of the DOM, and the relationships of the nodes, to determine changes between the two DOM versions of the documents.
In other words, when Jiang creates a DOM for each separate modified document, it includes identifying the layout/structure of every node (parent/child nodes), the relationships of the nodes within the DOM, and the changes of that separated modified versions such that the identified nodes/subnodes of the created DOMs of each separated version are used to determine the differences between the two DOMs when the DOMs are compared. Furthermore, since Jiang et al discloses the claimed functionality that are performed by the claimed comparers, then Jiang et al discloses the necessary comparers in order to perform the functionality)
a difference tree generator to generate said difference tree according to the results of said multiple comparers (FIG 1, 2A, 2F, 3A-C; 0022-25, 0034-37, 50-56: A difference tree is generated and displayed showing the differences between the two document versions in a display utility(Fig 1 (120) 0034 discloses The display utility will show what kind of changes were made in the two different documents such as what was deleted, what was added, and what was changed.).
a version merger to create an merged version of said two individually modified versions according to said difference tree(FIG 1, 2A, 2F, 3A-C; 0022-25, 0034-37, 50-56: different documents are merged together and an integrated version(updated document) of the website (document) is created based on the difference tree. This integrated version will be shown by the display utility or engine – see (Fig. 2F and 3B and 3C). The user also has the ability to further edit the updated document by accepting some or none of the merged changes)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein said relationships comprise a defined linear order among the components at a containment level of said respective component tree. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term(s) “defined linear order” and “containment level”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Therefore, Kanevsky discloses a preprocessor to analyze said components in each said tree to extract relevant component sets and to analyze and modify said components for comparison where necessary Kanevsky discloses analyzing the components(web page data) based on its properties and modify them so they are in a proper layout. This method is done by various modules within the web page adaptor server. The URL/CGI instruction interpreter module with the matching module and the search module will determine if the web page can fit the client machine’s display with no modification or with a pre-existing URL/CGI model. If this is not possible then the closest pre-existing URL/CGI model is selected and the automatic web page adaption module will analyze the web page data (URL/CGI model) and modify them so they are grouped appropriately and in proper layout. It will filter, adjust, adapt, and regroup the components (Fig. 1(107); Fig. 3; Fig. 8; Fig. 9(904, 905, 802); Col 7 lines 57-67; Col 8 lines 1-67; Col 9 lines 1- 43; Col 11 lines 14-67; Col 12 lines 1-18; Col 13 lines 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-14; Col 15 lines 12-67; Col 16 lines 1-10). Furthermore, Kanevsky teaches the functionality to figure out how to put in order the elements within the nodes. The elements being the web objects. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships and when doing so a node structure will be needed to store the elements(web objects). The orderer is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. The prioritizer, the operator module, and the combining module will figure out together how to put in order the web objects so they can be in the proper layout order. The prioritizer is used for organization purposes such that objects are numerated in accordance with their importance. In other words, the orderer uses the prioritization of objects from the prioritizer in forming an order such higher priority objects will be place in the order before lower priority objects. Using the information from the URL/CGI model, the semantic interpreter (located within the operator module), and the information from the prioritizer, these three modules figure out how to place these web objects in the appropriate order. (Col 7 lines 57-67; Col 8 1-67; Col 9 lines 1-41; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9). For example, Kanevsky discloses ordering elements based priority relationships into a list like sequence with decreasing priority. Object/content that have the highest priority are placed first/top wherein the second highest priority is placed second, third priority is placed third, etc. such that the object with the lowest priority is placed at the bottom. In other words, items may be represented in a column/list with priority decreasing in order from top to bottom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Kanevsky since it would have provided the organization of viewing material associated with web sites for visual displays and windows on and within which these web pages are being viewed. A different viewing-access strategy is provided for such visual devices varying, for example, from standard PC monitors, laptop screens and palmtops to webphone and digital camera displays, to any device, with a display, capable of web browsing, and from large windows to small windows.
As per independent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Jiang et al discloses storing instructions in a memory; executing, by a processor coupled to the memory, said instructions to perform operations (Claim 1, 46: discloses application code/instructions stored on a medium (memory) and executed by a processor/computer)
Claims 2-6, 8, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in further view of Kanevsky in further view of Kupova (US 7162501, 2007)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/8/24)
As per dependent claim 2, the cited art fails to specifically disclose structure comprises split and merged container components, attributes and component ID retaining split transformations. However, Kupova teaches which components(nodes) and containers(hierarchical fragments) got spilt and merged when comparing the two XML files and create a differential document. By traversing the tree structure starting with root node down to all the leaf nodes and comparing the content of the nodes. Each node represents an element and has attribute information. The attribute information can contain ID information and geometrical information about the element. Each node also belongs to a namespace. All this information is compared to understand what has been added, changed, deleted, and even structurally moved. When understanding this, the system can see what components and containers got spilt and merged. It can see whether new sibling nodes/containers have been added and merged with existing nodes or containers. It can see if sibling nodes/containers have been removed or spilt up and moved and merged with other nodes and containers. This is all done by looking at the namespace, attribute, and ID information (Fig. 2-3; Abstract; Col 1, lines 55-Col 2, line 4; Col 4, line 49-Col 6 line 63; Col 7, line63-Col 9, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Kupova et al since it would have provided the benefit of collectively display changes made to all the versions as well as to display the change history of a portion to which each change was made.
As per dependent claim 3, Jiang discloses comprising a version resolver to resolve conflicts for said difference tree generator (Fig 1, 2A, 2F, 3A-C; 0025-26, 0042-43, 0048-51: Discloses the functionality to resolve conflicts between the two document versions. After comparing the two different versions of the document, the display utility or engine will show what changes were made to the different documents and an integrated version. It will also allow the user to make any changes he wants to the integrated version(updated version))
As per dependent claim 4, Jiang discloses wherein said version resolver comprises at least one of: a difference tree browser to display a hierarchy of said difference tree for manual version resolving; a merged page displayer to present a display of at least one current state of a merged page for manual version resolving; a component attribute browser to display values of a component attribute, including displaying two values for components for which there is a comparison node for manual version resolving; a resolver selector and coordinator to select and coordinate between said difference tree browser, said merged page displayer, and said component attribute browser; and a merged component tree generator to provide combined results from at least one of said difference tree browser, said merged page displayer, and said component attribute browser and to generate a new resolved difference tree. (Jiang discloses merged page displayer to present a display of at least one current state of a merged page for manual version resolving. Fig. 2F, 3A-C; 0032-37, 41, 0050-56: after merging the different XML documents it will display a merged page – that is it shows how the two different versions are merged together. See this in Figures 2F and 3C(340)).
As per dependent claim 5, Jiang discloses in the functionality to compare nodes by looking at their content information. The two different DOM files (representing two different separately modified versions of a document) are compared by parsing the data and meta-data which are the nodes and their attributes and comparing the nodes and associated attribute information. Nodes that are same, added or deleted can easily be identified (0030-0031, 0053) Jiang discloses comparing versions of a document by first creating a DOM for each separate modified version and then comparing the DOMs of each separate modified document to identify the differences. As explained, Jiang discloses determine the internal content and attributes relationships of the components via the DOM. However, the cited art fails discloses wherein said multiple comparers comprise at least two of: a structural version comparer to compare said nodes of said component trees of said at least two individually modified versions through comparison of their geometrical, content and semantic relationships; an order based version comparer to compare said nodes of the component trees of said at least two individually modified versions based on an order of said nodes and sub-nodes of said component trees and to pre- match said nodes of said component trees according to an internal WBS identifier; a semantic matching comparer to semantically classify said nodes and sub- nodes of said component trees of said at least two individually modified versions and match them according to their semantic classes and geometrical parameters; and a comparison selector and coordinator to provide selection and coordination between said structural version comparer, said order based version comparer and said semantic matching comparer according to at least one of structure and attributes of said components.
However, based on the rejection of claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Kanevsky discloses disclose a structural version comparer to compare said nodes of said component trees…through comparison of their geometrical, content and semantic relationships; and a semantic matching comparer to perform semantic classification on said nodes and match them according to their semantic classes and geometrical parameters. Kanevsky discloses comparing nodes by looking to see if they are semantically matched. Kanevsky describes where a desktop website is being converted to fit on a mobile device – in doing so, it will match nodes based on semantics. The semantic interpreter detects semantic relationship sets where the nodes(web objects) are closely related to each other. These web objects can be links and icons. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships, when doing so the nodes that go together will be coupled (Col 14 lines 58-67). Furthermore, Kanevsky teaches that it will compare nodes and match them based on semantics and geometrical parameters. Nodes(web page data objects) are determined from a website document(web script). Information about the nodes’ size and location can be retrieved by looking at the information within the node. That is information about the text size or icon/image shape and size can be retrieved. In the automatic web page adaption module are the prioritizer and the operator module. The prioritizer and the operator module will together analyze or understand the nodes(web page data objects). The semantic interpreter module which is located within the operator module will look at the information content of a node and determine which nodes are related to each other and put them together. When looking at the information content it is looking at the values of various attributes – like content of the text, size, location. Size and location are the geometrical parameters of the node being used for matching up the nodes-- a semantic matching comparer to perform semantic classification on said nodes and match them according to their semantic classes and geometrical parameters (Col 10, lines 52-67; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9).
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar limitations as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale. However, Jiang fail to teach wherein said structural version comparer comprises at least one of: an ID-based matcher to match all components in said component trees that have the same ID; a geometrical relationship analyzer to perform geometrical matching to find pairs among non-ID-matched said components in said component trees; a component/attribute analyzer to check for changes in said component attributes; a component semantic analyzer to find said pairs among non-ID-matched said components; and a split merge analyzer to detect splitting and merging of said components and containers and to further detect ID retaining split transformations. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Kanevsky disclose a component semantic analyzer to find pairs among non-ID-matched said components. Kanevsky teaches that it will compare nodes by looking to see if they are semantically matched. Kanevsky describes where a desktop website is being converted to fit on a mobile device – in doing so, it will match nodes based on semantics. The semantic interpreter detects semantic relationship sets where the nodes(web objects) are closely related to each other. These web objects can be links and icons. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships, when doing so the nodes that go together will be coupled. Furthermore, Kanevsky teaches that it will compare nodes and match them based on semantics and geometrical parameters. Nodes(web page data objects) are determined from a website document(web script). Information about the nodes’ size and location can be retrieved by looking at the information within the node. That is information about the text size or icon/image shape and size can be retrieved. In the automatic web page adaption module are the prioritizer and the operator module. The prioritizer and the operator module will together analyze or understand the nodes(web page data objects). The semantic interpreter module which is located within the operator module will look at the information content of a node and determine which nodes are related to each other and put them together. When looking at the information content it is looking at the values of various attributes – like content of the text, size, location. (Col 10, lines 52-67; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9).
As per dependent claim 8, Claim 8 recites similar limitations as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Jiang fail to disclose a semantic classifier to classify said components into a semantic classification; and a class/attribute matcher to create a match between elements from two matched components based on said semantic classification. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Kanevsky teaches that it will compare nodes and match them based on semantics and geometrical parameters. Nodes(web page data objects) are determined from a website document(web script). Information about the nodes’ size and location can be retrieved by looking at the information within the node. That is information about the text size or icon/image shape and size can be retrieved. In the automatic web page adaption module are the prioritizer and the operator module. The prioritizer and the operator module will together analyze or understand the nodes(web page data objects). The semantic interpreter module which is located within the operator module will look at the information content of a node and determine which nodes are related to each other and put them together. When looking at the information content it is looking at the values of various attributes – like content of text, size, location. (Col 10, lines 52-67; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9).
As per dependent claims 11-13, Claims 11-13 recites similar limitations as in Claims 2-4 and are rejected under similar rationale
As per dependent claims 14-15, 17, Claims 14-15, 17 recites similar limitations as in Claims 5-6, 8 and are rejected under similar rationale
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in further view of Kanevsky et al in further view of Kupova in further view of Kanie et al in further view of Dharmalingam (US 20110066626, 2011) (Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/8/24)
As per dependent claim 7, Claim 7 recites similar limitations as in Claims 1 and 5 and is rejected under similar rationale. However, the cited art fail to a preprocessor to analyze components in a component tree to extract relevant component sets and to modify said components for comparison where necessary; an orderer to determine an order for sub nodes within a containment level of sub-nodes according to at least component types and content and Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships and when doing so a node structure will be needed to store the elements(web objects). The orderer is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. The prioritizer, the operator module, and the combining module will figure out together how to put in order the web objects so they can be in the proper layout order. Using the information from the URL/CGI model, the semantic interpreter (located within the operator module), and the information from the prioritizer, these three modules figure out how to place these web objects in the appropriate order (Col 7 lines 57-67; Col 8 1-67; Col 9 lines 1-41; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9).
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically discloses determine relationships between components according to their editing history for comparing nodes/components and sub-nodes; determine an order for sub nodes within a containment level of sub-nodes according to their edit history. However, Kanie et al discloses the analyzing the editing history of the multiple versions of a document for comparing the different versions of a document based on their nodes (FIG 20; 0081, 0084) In other words, the editing history of each version of the multi-version document is determined then compared to determine the differences between each version of the multi-version document. Thus, Kanie discloses two individually modified versions of a document being analyzed for each of their editing history. In summary, Kanie et al discloses the use of an editing history to indicate the changes of the document based on the changes made across different versions of the document.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Kanie et al since it would have provided the benefit of collectively display changes made to all the versions as well as to display the change history of a portion to which each change was made. (abstract)
Thus, in conjunction of Kanie et al and Kanevsky, the combination teaches an orderer to determine an order for sub nodes within a containment level of sub-nodes according to at least component types and content and said editing history. Furthermore, the cited art fails to disclose a sequence matcher to perform sequence matching on said components. However, Dharmalingam further teaches the functionality to take two structured XML files and compare the nodes based on their order and going in sequence match the nodes based on comparing their elements and attributes. The system will convert the two XML files to DOM format. The system will start at the root of each of each DOM file and traverse in order down each subtree examining each node and the contents of each node until there are no more nodes. If two nodes match down to attributes’ values, the system will note it. Figure 3 shows the routine starting at the root element(node) and going through each child element and comparing the attributes and values of the attributes for each element. The system can show what parts are the same(sequence match) and what parts are different between the two different files. (Fig. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 5; Abstract; 0014-25, 0027, 0039-40, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Kanevsky since it would have provided the benefit of a robust merging technique that would automatically merge data contained in two or more XML documents into one single merged XML document.
As per dependent claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in further view of Kanevsky in further in view of Joshi et al (US 20060026496, 2006) (Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/8/24)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art fails to disclose said relationships between components are at least one of: overlap, intersection, proximity, relative position, and relative size. However, Joshi et al discloses identify proximity relationships among elements within a DOM. (Claims 26, 31-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention since it would have provided the benefit of improved methods for characterizing and generating representations of Web-based information resources, such as for categorizing Web pages and for efficient information retrieval.
As per dependent claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as in Claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 9817804 in further view of Kanevsky.
Independent claims 1 and 10
As per independent claims 1 and 10 of the current application, claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9817804 and claims 1 and 10 of the current application both disclose creating a difference tree to represent differences between component trees representing at least two versions of a website page, said component trees having nodes to represent components of said website page and sub- nodes to represent components inside a container component, and generating an updated version of said website page from said difference tree; preprocess nodes and sub-nodes of said component trees to determine relationships between components thereof according to at least one of: their structure, semantic relationships, and editing history, wherein said relationships comprise a defined linear order among the components at a containment level of said respective component tree; compare the nodes and sub- nodes of said component trees based on said determined relationships; generating said difference tree representing the differences in components between said at least two versions according to the results of said determining and comparing; and creating an merged version of said at least two individually modified versions according to said difference tree. However, claims 1 and 10 fail to specifically disclose wherein said relationships comprise a defined linear order among the components at a containment level of said respective component tree. Kanevsky discloses a preprocessor to analyze said components in each said tree to extract relevant component sets and to analyze and modify said components for comparison where necessary Kanevsky discloses analyzing the components(web page data) based on its properties and modify them so they are in a proper layout. This method is done by various modules within the web page adaptor server. The URL/CGI instruction interpreter module with the matching module and the search module will determine if the web page can fit the client machine’s display with no modification or with a pre-existing URL/CGI model. If this is not possible then the closest pre-existing URL/CGI model is selected and the automatic web page adaption module will analyze the web page data (URL/CGI model) and modify them so they are grouped appropriately and in proper layout. It will filter, adjust, adapt, and regroup the components (Fig. 1(107); Fig. 3; Fig. 8; Fig. 9(904, 905, 802); Col 7 lines 57-67; Col 8 lines 1-67; Col 9 lines 1- 43; Col 11 lines 14-67; Col 12 lines 1-18; Col 13 lines 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-14; Col 15 lines 12-67; Col 16 lines 1-10). Furthermore, Kanevsky teaches the functionality to figure out how to put in order the elements within the nodes. The elements being the web objects. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships and when doing so a node structure will be needed to store the elements(web objects). The orderer is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. The prioritizer, the operator module, and the combining module will figure out together how to put in order the web objects so they can be in the proper layout order. The prioritizer is used for organization purposes such that objects are numerated in accordance with their importance. In other words, the orderer uses the prioritization of objects from the prioritizer in forming an order such higher priority objects will be place in the order before lower priority objects. Using the information from the URL/CGI model, the semantic interpreter (located within the operator module), and the information from the prioritizer, these three modules figure out how to place these web objects in the appropriate order. (Col 7 lines 57-67; Col 8 1-67; Col 9 lines 1-41; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9). For example, Kanevsky discloses ordering elements based priority relationships into a list like sequence with decreasing priority. Object/content that have the highest priority are placed first/top wherein the second highest priority is placed second, third priority is placed third, etc. such that the object with the lowest priority is placed at the bottom. In other words, items may be represented in a column/list with priority decreasing in order from top to bottom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Kanevsky since it would have provided the organization of viewing material associated with web sites for visual displays and windows on and within which these web pages are being viewed. A different viewing-access strategy is provided for such visual devices varying, for example, from standard PC monitors, laptop screens and palmtops to webphone and digital camera displays, to any device, with a display, capable of web browsing, and from large windows to small windows.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18
Claims 13, 31 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 2, 11 of the current application
Claims 2, 20 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 3, 12 of the current application
Claims 3, 21 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 4, 13 of the current application
Claims 1, 19 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 5, 14 of the current application
Claims 13, 31 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 6, 15 of the current application
Claims 14, 32 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 7, 16 of the current application
Claims 15, 33 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 8, 17 of the current application
Claims 16, 34 of 9817804 recite similar limitations as Claim 9, 18 of the current application
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 11829437 in further view of Kanevsky.
Independent claims 1 and 10
As per independent claims 1 and 10 of the current application, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other being substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology such that claims 1 and 10 of the current application are generic to the claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11829437. Both applications disclose creating a difference tree to represent differences between component trees representing at least two individually modified versions of a website page, said component trees having nodes to represent components of said website page and sub- nodes to represent components inside a container component, and generating an updated version of said website page from said difference tree; preprocess nodes and sub-nodes of said component trees to determine relationships between components thereof according to at least one of: their structure, semantic relationships, and editing history, wherein said relationships comprise a defined linear order among the components at a containment level of said respective component tree; compare the nodes and sub- nodes of said component trees based on said determined relationships; generating said difference tree representing the differences in components between said at least two versions according to the results of said determining and comparing; and creating an merged version of said at least two individually modified versions according to said difference tree. However, claims 1 and 10 fail to specifically disclose wherein said relationships comprise a defined linear order among the components at a containment level of said respective component tree. Kanevsky discloses a preprocessor to analyze said components in each said tree to extract relevant component sets and to analyze and modify said components for comparison where necessary Kanevsky discloses analyzing the components(web page data) based on its properties and modify them so they are in a proper layout. This method is done by various modules within the web page adaptor server. The URL/CGI instruction interpreter module with the matching module and the search module will determine if the web page can fit the client machine’s display with no modification or with a pre-existing URL/CGI model. If this is not possible then the closest pre-existing URL/CGI model is selected and the automatic web page adaption module will analyze the web page data (URL/CGI model) and modify them so they are grouped appropriately and in proper layout. It will filter, adjust, adapt, and regroup the components (Fig. 1(107); Fig. 3; Fig. 8; Fig. 9(904, 905, 802); Col 7 lines 57-67; Col 8 lines 1-67; Col 9 lines 1- 43; Col 11 lines 14-67; Col 12 lines 1-18; Col 13 lines 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-14; Col 15 lines 12-67; Col 16 lines 1-10). Furthermore, Kanevsky teaches the functionality to figure out how to put in order the elements within the nodes. The elements being the web objects. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships and when doing so a node structure will be needed to store the elements(web objects). The orderer is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. The prioritizer, the operator module, and the combining module will figure out together how to put in order the web objects so they can be in the proper layout order. The prioritizer is used for organization purposes such that objects are numerated in accordance with their importance. In other words, the orderer uses the prioritization of objects from the prioritizer in forming an order such higher priority objects will be place in the order before lower priority objects. Using the information from the URL/CGI model, the semantic interpreter (located within the operator module), and the information from the prioritizer, these three modules figure out how to place these web objects in the appropriate order. (Col 7 lines 57-67; Col 8 1-67; Col 9 lines 1-41; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9). For example, Kanevsky discloses ordering elements based priority relationships into a list like sequence with decreasing priority. Object/content that have the highest priority are placed first/top wherein the second highest priority is placed second, third priority is placed third, etc. such that the object with the lowest priority is placed at the bottom. In other words, items may be represented in a column/list with priority decreasing in order from top to bottom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Kanevsky since it would have provided the organization of viewing material associated with web sites for visual displays and windows on and within which these web pages are being viewed. A different viewing-access strategy is provided for such visual devices varying, for example, from standard PC monitors, laptop screens and palmtops to webphone and digital camera displays, to any device, with a display, capable of web browsing, and from large windows to small windows.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18
Claims 12, 19, 26, 30 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 2, 11 of the current application
Claims 2, 21 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 3, 12 of the current application
Claims 3, 22 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 4, 13 of the current application
Claims 1, 11, 19, 25 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 5, 14 of the current application
Claims 12, 26 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 6, 15 of the current application
Claim 13 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 7, 16 of the current application
Claims 14, 27 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 8, 17 of the current application
Claims 17, 28 of 11829437 recite similar limitations as Claim 9, 18 of the current application
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 21-22, in regards to the 35 USC 112 rejection, Applicant’s amendment to the independent claims has overcome the pending issues in Claims 1-18 that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amendments made to the claims comprises new issues within the claims that were not previously presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claims remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
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 DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172