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 action is made non-final.
Claims 1-18 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0023] recites “certain other keywords rlating” but the underlined element should recite “relating”. Paragraph [0023] further recites “the system finds that no… of keywords exist” but the underlined element should recite “keywords”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hungerford et al. (US 8392822 B2), in view of Szewczyk (US 8225197 B1), and in view of Krishnappa (US 8479289 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hungerford teaches a method for determining whether a web resource complies with a policy for displaying an informational notice (FIGS. 2-4 and Col. 3, line 7 to Col. 4, line 10: whether a web resource/URL or web site complies with a policy for displaying an informational notice, such as privacy notice 151, is determined), the method implemented in a computing system and comprising:
obtaining (FIG. 1 and Col. 2, line 25 to Col. 3, line 6: a plurality of pages comprise a web site. Instructions for displaying content elements are obtained via HTML “and/or other suitable languages” as supported in Col. 2, lines 35-36);
traversing the (FIG. 1 and Col. 2, line 25 to Col. 3, line 6: the HTML representation of the web site is traversed, and the informational notice/privacy notice 151 is determined to be included),
in response to determining that the content element corresponds to the informational notice (FIG. 1 and Col. 2, line 25 to Col. 3, line 6, Col. 3, lines 28-38: one content element, such as first privacy notice 151, is determined to be corresponding to the informational notice/privacy notice 151):
determining whether the web resource is configured to display the content element according to a visibility metric (FIGS. 2-4 and Col. 3, line 7 to Col. 4, line 10: whether a web resource is configured to display an informational notice/privacy notice 151 according to a visibility metric is determined. For example, in FIG. 3, it is determined that the content element/first privacy notice 151 should be rendered by the web browser according to first notification setting NS_1); and
generating an indication of whether the web resource contains the informational notice according to the visibility metric (FIGS. 2-4 and Col. 3, line 7 to Col. 4, line 10: an indication of whether the webs resource contains the informational notice is generated as first privacy notice 151 is rendered by the web browser).
Hungerford does not explicitly teach obtaining a Document Object Model (DOM) representation of the web resource, the DOM representation specifying a hierarchy of pages; traversing the DOM…, including calculating a likelihood that a content element corresponds to the informational notice based on one or more keywords associated with the informational notice; and determining a set of visual parameters of the content element.
Szewczyk teaches
obtaining a Document Object Model (DOM) representation of the web resource, the DOM representation specifying a hierarchy of pages and including instructions for displaying content elements (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, FIG. 3 and Col. 7, lines 23-31 and Col. 8, lines 24-63: a DOM representation/DOM 104 is obtained, the DOM representation specifying a hierarchy of pages and including instructions for displaying content elements);
traversing the DOM representation of the web resource (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, FIG. 3 and Col. 7, lines 23-31 and Col. 8, lines 24-63: DOM 104 is traversed);
in response to determining that the content element corresponds to the informational notice:
determining a set of visual parameters of the content element (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, and Col. 4, lines 23-61: for example, it is determined that the content element at node 106b corresponds to a box element. For the box 106B, a set of visual parameters, including a size, border, location, font, placement or other properties of the content element, is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford by incorporating the teachings of Szewczyk so as to include obtaining a Document Object Model (DOM) representation of the web resource, the DOM representation specifying a hierarchy of pages; traversing the DOM; and determining a set of visual parameters of the content element. Doing so would allow for leveraging of HTML, which is used in both Hungerford’s and Szewczyk’s teachings, for interaction with a DOM to more efficiently and accurately analyze and parse contents of a web resource. In this way, specified visual parameters of the content element are ensured to be followed so that the web resource may be reproduced in a more predictable, readable, and/or visually appealing manner. Potential errors in reproducing a web resource may be reduced if specific configurations are processed with respect to a DOM.
Hungerford in view of Szewczyk does not explicitly teach calculating a likelihood that a content element corresponds to the informational notice based on one or more keywords associated with the informational notice.
Krishnappa teaches calculating a likelihood that a content element corresponds to the informational notice based on one or more keywords associated with the informational notice (FIG. 4 and Col. 11, lines 23 to 59, Col. 17, lines 33-53: a likelihood that a content element/alert corresponds to the informational notice, or malware alert, based on one or more keywords associated with the informational notice is calculated; Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 21: As supported in Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, line 1, “any alert sample including the defined keywords is considered a malware alert”. Thus, a content element of an alert is calculated to be certainly a malware alert based on the presence of one or more keywords associated with the informational notice/malware alert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hungerford in view of Szewczyk by incorporating the teachings of Krishnappa so as to include calculating a likelihood that a content element corresponds to the informational notice based on one or more keywords associated with the informational notice. Doing so would allow the system to flag certain contextually relevant words to more accurately determine presence of an informational notice rather than basing presence of an informational notice based on solely, for example, structural HTML. By leverage specific keywords relevant to the informational notice, the likelihood of wasting processing resources for additional processing, that occurs when a content element is mistakenly determined to be corresponding to an informational notice, may be reduced.
Regarding claim 2, Hungerford in view of Szewczyk in view of Krishnappa teaches the method of claim 1. Szewczyk further teaches wherein the determining of whether the web resource is configured to display the content element according to the visibility metric includes:
determining whether an entirety of a box enclosing the informational notice is within a visible screen (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, and Col. 4, lines 23-61: in this example, an entirety of a box 106B is determined to be within a visible screen as seen on webpage 102; See the rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hungerford in view of Szewczyk in view of Krishnappa teaches the method of claim 1. Szewczyk further teaches wherein the determining of the set of visual parameters of the content element includes:
determining a position of the content element using the obtained DOM representation (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, and Col. 4, lines 23-61: for example, it is determined that the content element at node 106b corresponds to a box element. For the box 106B, a set of visual parameters, including a size, border, location, font, placement or other properties of the content element, is determined; See the rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hungerford in view of Szewczyk in view of Krishnappa teaches the method of claim 1. Szewczyk further teaches wherein the determining of the set of visual parameters of the content element includes:
determining a height and a width of the content element using the obtained DOM representation (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, and Col. 4, lines 23-61: for example, it is determined that the content element at node 106b corresponds to a box element. For the box 106B, a set of visual parameters, including a size, border, location, font, placement or other properties of the content element, is determined. “For example, the property for DOM node 106B may indicate the font of the text to be "Times New Roman", the size to be "12", the text is `bolded and underlined` and the text is `left justified` within a text box that has a height of 65 and a width of 60.”; See the rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hungerford in view of Szewczyk in view of Krishnappa teaches the method of claim 4. Szewczyk further teaches further comprising:
determining a height and a width of a screen in which the web resource is presented (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, and Col. 4, line 23 to Col. 5, line 10, and Col. 7, lines 12-22: a height and width of a screen, or canvas element 108, is determined in which the web resource is presented; See the rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hungerford in view of Szewczyk in view of Krishnappa teaches the method of claim 1. Szewczyk further teaches wherein the determining of whether the web resource is configured to display the content element according to the visibility metric includes:
determining a font size of text included in the content element, using the obtained DOM representation (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-65, and Col. 4, lines 23-61: for example, it is determined that the content element at node 106b corresponds to a box element. For the box 106B, a set of visual parameters, including a size, border, location, font, placement or other properties of the content element, is determined. “For example, the property for DOM node 106B may indicate the font of the text to be "Times New Roman", the size to be "12", the text is `bolded and underlined` and the text is `left justified` within a text box that has a height of 65 and a width of 60.”; See the rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claims 7-12, the claims recite a computing system for determining whether a web resource complies with a policy for displaying an informational notice, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Hungerford, Col. 13, lines 12-35), cause the one or more processors to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 13-18, the claims recite one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media for determining whether a web resource complies with a policy for displaying an informational notice, the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system (Hungerford, Col. 13, lines 12-35), cause the one or more processors to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 10198408 B1: analyzing DOM for rendered web page to determine location and geometry of bounding box, font, and font size of each word on the web page
US 2020/0322346 A1: privacy setting configuration with confirmation popup window
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 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 D 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 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171