DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Election filed on 11/04/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending in the case. Claims 11-13 were elected. Claims 1-10 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PT118710, filed on 06/10/2023, and in parent Application No. PT118909, filed on 09/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“if” [e.g. claim 11, lines 15, 17, and 20] = The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on “if” conditions being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11:
Line 12 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a value” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 10 of the same claim).
Lines 12-13 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a GUI element” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 10 of the same claim).
Line 13 improperly reintroduces the limitation “sequential keyboard navigation” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 11 of the same claim).
Line 16 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a tab index attribute” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 3 of the same claim).
Line 18 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a focused data chart” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 17 of the same claim).
Line 22 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a value” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 10 of the same claim).
Line 22 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a GUI element” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 10 of the same claim).
Line 23 improperly reintroduces the limitation “sequential keyboard navigation” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 11 of the same claim).
Line 23 improperly reintroduces the limitation “focus” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 18 of the same claim).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Page et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0121723, hereinafter “Page”).
As to independent claim 11, Page shows:
A computer-implemented method for enhancing navigability on a graphical user interface (GUI) [¶ 03] comprising GUI elements [“the first web page comprises a plurality of elements” (¶ 15)] to be provided on a display [¶ 318],
each GUI element having a tab index attribute for keyboard or voice sequential navigation [“{…} a test may determine if one or more tabbable elements on in web page have an ARIA hidden attribute.{…} one or more elements may be tabbable because they have a tabindex attribute. {…}” (¶ 162)];
the GUI elements comprising a plurality of data charts, each data chart comprising a plurality of data series GUI elements [the GUI elements may comprise a plurality of data charts/tables/grids, each data chart comprising a plurality of data series GUI elements (¶¶ 125, 157, & 269) | For even further examples of “tables or grids” as charts, see also ¶¶ 98, 176, 213-220, 228, 295-297, & 307.];
the method comprising carrying out, by a data processing device comprising a processor [¶ 313], the steps of:
loading for displaying on said display a received GUI data structure comprising said GUI elements [loading for displaying on said display “a hypertext markup language (HTML), document object model (DOM), wherein the DOM comprises one or more nodes, the one or more nodes organized into a DOM tree structure” (¶ 09) | See also ¶¶ 14-15 & 47-48.];
clearing or setting the tab index attribute of GUI elements, including button GUI elements [¶¶ 172-173 & 254], to a value corresponding to a GUI element being non-reachable via sequential keyboard navigation [“{…} a test may determine if one or more tabbable elements on in web page have an ARIA hidden attribute. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they are naturally tabbable. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they have a tabindex attribute. In some embodiments, one or more naturally tabbable element may be hidden at least in part from assistive technology by setting its tabindex to −1. In some embodiments, one or more element that is not naturally tabbable may be hidden from assistive technology at least in part by removing the tabindex attribute from the element.” (¶ 162) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 285, & 306.];
setting the tab index attribute in each data chart to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation [the tab index attribute in each data chart/table/grid (¶¶ 125, 157, & 269) may be set to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation (¶ 286) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 280, & 306.];
receiving one or more user inputs [¶¶ 255 & 318-319], and for each received user input: if the received user input corresponds to a downwards direction, then clearing any tab index attribute from the GUI elements, setting a tab index attribute for each data series GUI element comprised in a focused data chart if GUI user focus is on a focused data chart, and setting focus to a first data series GUI element of the focused data chart; if the received user input corresponds to an upwards direction, then clearing any tab index attribute from the data series GUI elements, setting the tab index attribute in each data chart to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation, and setting focus to the data chart of a previously focused data series GUI element [Page shows the operability to receive at least some inputs (¶¶ 255 & 318-319) that correspond to neither a “downwards direction” nor “an upwards direction.” Since this is a method claim where the conditions precedent (e.g. “if the received user input corresponds to a downwards direction” and/or “if the received user input corresponds to an upwards direction”) are not met, the limitations that are contingent (introduced within corresponding “then” clauses) are required neither to be performed nor be mapped to the prior art. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.].
As to dependent claim 12, Page further shows:
wherein the user inputs are keystrokes or voice instructions [the user inputs may be keystrokes (¶¶ 255 & 318-319) or voice instructions (¶¶ 04-06, 18, & 319).].
As to dependent claim 13, Page further shows:
wherein the method is carried out by an assistive data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide an accessible GUI or a data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide a voice assistant [the method is carried out by an assistive data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide an accessible GUI (¶ 03) or a data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide a voice assistant (¶¶ 04-06, 18, & 319)].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0121723, hereinafter “Page”) in view of "Developing a Keyboard Interface." Captured 06/01/2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20220601070114/https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/practices/keyboard-interface/ (hereinafter “ARIA APG”).
As to independent claim 11, Page shows:
A computer-implemented method for enhancing navigability on a graphical user interface (GUI) [¶ 03] comprising GUI elements [“the first web page comprises a plurality of elements” (¶ 15)] to be provided on a display [¶ 318],
each GUI element having a tab index attribute for keyboard or voice sequential navigation [“{…} a test may determine if one or more tabbable elements on in web page have an ARIA hidden attribute.{…} one or more elements may be tabbable because they have a tabindex attribute. {…}” (¶ 162)];
the GUI elements comprising a plurality of data charts, each data chart comprising a plurality of data series GUI elements [the GUI elements may comprise a plurality of data charts/tables/grids, each data chart comprising a plurality of data series GUI elements (¶¶ 125, 157, & 269) | For even further examples of “tables or grids” as charts, see also ¶¶ 98, 176, 213-220, 228, 295-297, & 307.];
the method comprising carrying out, by a data processing device comprising a processor [¶ 313], the steps of:
loading for displaying on said display a received GUI data structure comprising said GUI elements [loading for displaying on said display “a hypertext markup language (HTML), document object model (DOM), wherein the DOM comprises one or more nodes, the one or more nodes organized into a DOM tree structure” (¶ 09) | See also ¶¶ 14-15 & 47-48.];
clearing or setting the tab index attribute of GUI elements, including button GUI elements [¶¶ 172-173 & 254], to a value corresponding to a GUI element being non-reachable via sequential keyboard navigation [“{…} a test may determine if one or more tabbable elements on in web page have an ARIA hidden attribute. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they are naturally tabbable. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they have a tabindex attribute. In some embodiments, one or more naturally tabbable element may be hidden at least in part from assistive technology by setting its tabindex to −1. In some embodiments, one or more element that is not naturally tabbable may be hidden from assistive technology at least in part by removing the tabindex attribute from the element.” (¶ 162) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 285, & 306.];
setting the tab index attribute in each data chart to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation [the tab index attribute in each data chart/table/grid (¶¶ 125, 157, & 269) may be set to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation (¶ 286) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 280, & 306.];
receiving one or more user inputs [¶¶ 255 & 318-319]{…}
Page further shows all of the functionalities below, albeit in a dispersed manner (meaning not in a single situation/use-case as described in the limitations below). For example, Page shows:
if the received user input corresponds to a downwards direction [e.g. determining if the user input corresponds to “onkeydown events” (¶ 116)],
{…} clearing any tab index attribute from the GUI elements [“{…} a test may determine if one or more tabbable elements on in web page have an ARIA hidden attribute. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they are naturally tabbable. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they have a tabindex attribute. In some embodiments, one or more naturally tabbable element may be hidden at least in part from assistive technology by setting its tabindex to −1. In some embodiments, one or more element that is not naturally tabbable may be hidden from assistive technology at least in part by removing the tabindex attribute from the element.” (¶ 162) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 285, & 306.],
setting a tab index attribute for each data series GUI element comprised in a focused data chart if GUI user focus is on a focused data chart [the tab index attribute for each element in a focused chart/table/grid (¶¶ 125, 157, & 269) may be set (¶ 286) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 280, & 306.], and
setting focus to a first data series GUI element of the focused data chart [e.g. being able to set focus to a first data series GUI element of the focused data chart (¶¶ 129, 178, 269-271, & 286)];
if the received user input corresponds to an upwards direction [e.g. determining if the user input corresponds to “onkeyup events” (¶ 116)],
{…} clearing any tab index attribute from the data series GUI elements [“{…} a test may determine if one or more tabbable elements on in web page have an ARIA hidden attribute. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they are naturally tabbable. In some embodiments, one or more elements may be tabbable because they have a tabindex attribute. In some embodiments, one or more naturally tabbable element may be hidden at least in part from assistive technology by setting its tabindex to −1. In some embodiments, one or more element that is not naturally tabbable may be hidden from assistive technology at least in part by removing the tabindex attribute from the element.” (¶ 162) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 285, & 306.],
setting the tab index attribute in each data chart to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation [the tab index attribute for each chart/table/grid (¶¶ 125, 157, & 269) may be set to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation (¶ 286) | See also ¶¶ 267-271, 280, & 306.], and
setting focus to the data chart of a previously focused data series GUI element [e.g. being able to set focus to the data chart of a previously focused data series GUI element (¶¶ 129, 178, 269-271, & 286)].
However, Page does not appear to describe a specific scenario where these functionalities happen to occur directly in response a “downwards” input or an “upwards” input. In an analogous art, Aria APG shows:
{…}for each received user input:
if the received user input corresponds to a downwards direction [a down “arrow key” input (pages 6-8)], then clearing any tab index attribute [removing/resetting/substituting the value (pages 6 & 7) of a “tabindex” attribute (page 5)] from the GUI elements, setting a tab index attribute for each data series GUI element comprised in a focused data chart if GUI user focus is on a focused data chart [setting the tabindex values of the child elements in a grid/chart composite element to a “focusable” value if the user has focused on a particular chart to navigate among its inner elements (pages 6 & 7)], and setting focus to a first data series GUI element of the focused data chart [setting focus to a first focusable child element inside the grid/chart composite element (pages 6-8)];
if the received user input corresponds to an upwards direction [an up “arrow key” input (pages 6-8)], then clearing any tab index attribute from the data series GUI elements [removing/resetting/substituting the value (pages 6 & 7) of a “tabindex” attribute (page 5)], setting the tab index attribute in each data chart to a value corresponding to a GUI element being reachable via sequential keyboard navigation, and setting focus to the data chart of a previously focused data series GUI element [setting the tabindex values of the outer/parent grid/chart composite elements themselves (instead of their inner contents) to a “focusable” value when the user exits the inner navigational scope of a specific chart/grid and instead focuses on navigating among the charts/grids (pages 2 & 6-8)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Page and Aria APG before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine Page’s teachings (including its “onkeydown,” “onkeyup,” tabindex clearing, tabindex setting, and element focusing functionalities) with Aria APG’s best practices teachings to arrive at the contingent1 chart navigation scenarios as currently claimed. The rationale for doing so would have been that Page’s explicit goal was “identifying accessibility issues in web sites and for remediating website accessibility issues to thereby facilitate website navigation by people with diverse abilities” (Page: Abstract) and Aria APG would have aided Page to achieve that goal by providing “experiences to people who rely on a keyboard that are as efficient and enjoyable as the experiences available to others” (Aria APG: page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Page and Aria APG (hereinafter, the “Page-Aria APG” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 11.
As to dependent claim 12, Page-Aria APG further shows:
wherein the user inputs are keystrokes or voice instructions [the user inputs may be keystrokes (Page: ¶¶ 255 & 318-319) or voice instructions (Page: ¶¶ 04-06, 18, & 319).].
As to dependent claim 13, Page-Aria APG further shows:
wherein the method is carried out by an assistive data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide an accessible GUI or a data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide a voice assistant [the method is carried out by an assistive data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide an accessible GUI (Page: ¶ 03) or a data processing device comprising a processor arranged to provide a voice assistant (Page: ¶¶ 04-06, 18, & 319)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Hendry; Robert Olson et al.
US 20130104029 A1
“A computer-implemented method for enhancing navigability on a graphical user interface (GUI){…}”
SONG; Dong-hyun
US 20100031176 A1
“A computer-implemented method for enhancing navigability on a graphical user interface (GUI){…}”
"Navigation Treeview Example." Captured 06/02/2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20230602041520/https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/treeview/examples/treeview-navigation/
“A computer-implemented method for enhancing navigability on a graphical user interface (GUI){…}”
"Grid (Interactive Tabular Data and Layout Containers) Pattern." Captured 05/30/2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20230530043710/https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/grid/
“A computer-implemented method for enhancing navigability on a graphical user interface (GUI){…}”
"Layout Grid Examples." Captured 06/06/2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20230606074345/https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/grid/examples/layout-grids/
“A computer-implemented method for enhancing navigability on a graphical user interface (GUI){…}”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
1 See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.