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 is a response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/672,053 filed on 05/23/2024 in which Claims 1 – 28 were filed for examination.
This Application is a continuation in part (CIP) of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/949,263 which is now U.S. Patent No. 12,019,699.
Status of the Claims
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, Claims 1 – 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, Claims 1, 4, 5, 8 – 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 26 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 23 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/09/2026 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Cross-reference to related applications par [0001] recited “This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application 17/949,263…”. This section should be amended to indicate that U.S. Patent Application No. 17/949,263 is now U.S. Patent No. 12,019,699.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 contains the trademark/trade name JAVASCRIPT. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a particular type of programing language and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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, 4, 5, 8 – 10, 12, 13, 18 and 21 – 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 - 7, 9 - 13, 16 - 18, 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,699 (hereinafter, Pat 699). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates the claims of the instant application.
The patent discloses:
1. A method (See Pat 699, Claim 1, Col. 14 line 58), comprising:
generating a demo recording of a web-based application comprising a set of web pages (See Pat 699 Claim 1 Col. 14 lines 59 – 60 and Col. 15 lines 8 – 10), the demo recording comprising a set of nodes corresponding to the web pages, each of the nodes comprising a set of web page resources (See Pat 699 Claim 1, Col. 14 lines 62 – 65);
retrieving a given node from the demo recording (See Pat 699, Claim 1, Col. 15 lines 8 – 12);
processing the set of web page resources in the retrieved node so as render, on a display, a first web page comprising a set of first web page elements (See Par 699 Claim 1, Col. 14 line 66 – Col. 15 line 2);
receiving, from a user, an input comprising a modification to a given first web page element (See Pat 699 Claim 1, Col. 15 lines 1 – 2);
updating the retrieved set of web page resources with the modified first web page element (See Pat 699, Claim 1, Col. 15 lines 11 – 12); and
running a demonstration of the web-based application by processing, by a client computer, the updated set of web page resources so as render, on the display, a second web page comprising a set of second web page elements (See Pat 699, Claim 1, Col. 15 lines 12 – 14).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the given first web page element comprises text (See Pat 699 Claim 16, Col. 15, lines 57 – 58).
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the given first page element comprises a button (See Pat 699 Claim 13, Col. 15 lines 46 – 47).
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the given first web page element comprises an image (See Pat 699 Claim 17, Col. 15 lines 59 – 60).
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the given first web page element comprises a chart (See Pat 699 Claim 18, Col. 15 lines 61 – 62).
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the given first web page element comprises a graph (See Pat 699 Claim 18, Col. 15 lines 61 – 62).
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given web page resource comprises browser-executable code for a given first web page element (See Pat 699 Claim 4, Col. 15 lines 22 – 24).
13. The method according to claim 12, wherein the browser-executable code comprises HyperText Markup Language (HTML) code (See Pat 699 Claim 5, Col. 15 lines 25 – 27).
18. The method according to claim 12, wherein the browser-executable code comprises Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) code (See Pat 699 Claim 6, Col. 15 lines 28 – 30).
21. The method according to claim 12 , wherein the browser-executable code comprises JavaScript code (See Pat 699 Claim 7, Col. 15 lines 31 – 32).
22. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given web page resource comprises an image(See Pat 699 Claim 9, Col. 15 lines 38 – 39).
23. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given web page resource comprises a font (See Pat 699 Claim 10, Col. 15 lines 40 – 41).
24. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given web page resource comprises an audio file (See Pat 699 Claim 11, Col. 15 lines 42 – 43).
25. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given web page resource comprises a video file (See Pat 699 Claim 12, Col. 15 lines 44 – 45).
26. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given web page resource comprises an icon (See Pat 699 Claim 13, Col. 15 lines 46 – 47).
27. An apparatus (See Pat 699 Claim 21, Col. 16 line5), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors configured:
to generate a demo recording of a web-based application comprising a set of web pages (See Pat 699 Claim 21, Col. 16 lines 9 – 10 and lines 28 – 30), the demo recording comprising a set of nodes corresponding to the web pages, each of the nodes comprising a set of web page resources (See Pat 699 Claim 21, Col. 16 lines 12 – 15);
to retrieve and store to the memory, a given node from the demo recording (See Pat 699 Claim 21, Col. 16 lines 28 – 31),
to process the set of web page resources in the retrieved node so as render, on a display, a first web page comprising a set of first web page elements (See Par 699 Claim 21 Col. 16 lines 17 – 20),
to receive, from a user, an input comprising a modification to a given first web page element (See Pat 699 Claim 21, Col. 16 lines 19 – 20),
to update the retrieved set of web page resources with the modified first web page element (See Pat 699 Claim 21, Col. 16 lines 30 – 33), and
to run a demonstration of the web-based application by processing, by a client computer, the updated set of web page resources so as render, on the display, a second web page comprising a set of second web page elements (See Pat 699 Claim 21, Col. 16 lines 34 – 35).
28. A computer software product for controlling operation of a computer, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, in which program instructions are stored, which instructions (See Pat 699 Claim 22 lines 36 – 39), when read by a computer, cause the computer:
to generate a demo recording of a web-based application comprising a set of web pages (See Pat 699 Claim 22, Col. 16 lines 41 – 42 and lines 59 – 61), the demo recording comprising a set of nodes corresponding to the web pages, each of the nodes comprising a set of web page resources (See Pat 699 Claim 22, Col. 16 lines 43 – 47);
to retrieve a given node from the demo recording (See Pat 699 Claim 22, Col. 16 lines 59 – 62);
to process the set of web page resources in the retrieved node so as render, on a display, a first web page comprising a set of first web page elements (See Par 699 Claim 22 Col. 16 lines 48 – 51);
to receive, from a user, an input comprising a modification to a given first web page element (See Pat 699 Claim 22, Col. 16 lines 50 – 51);
to update the retrieved set of web page resources with the modified first web page element (See Pat 699 Claim 22, Col. 16 lines 61 – 63); and
to run a demonstration of the web-based application by processing, by a client computer, the updated set of web page resources so as render, on the display, a second web page comprising a set of second web page elements (See Pat 699 Claim 22, Col. 16 lines 64 – 65).
Claims 2, 3, 14 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,699 (hereinafter, Pat 699) in view of Gissing et al. (US 2018/0123934).
2. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 1. Pat 699 also discloses the generation of a demonstrations of the application receiving interactions and modifications associated with the nodes (See Pat 699 Claim 1). However, Pat 699 does not disclose “further comprising copying the first nodes to a set of corresponding second nodes in a second demo recording, and saving the modified web page element to a given second node corresponding to the given first node”. Gissing in the same field of generating web-based recordings teaches this limitation (See Gissing in par 0073 – 0075, and Fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to copy the nodes of a first recording to a second recording as disclosed in Gissing. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a tool that allow the user to subsequent views of a plurality of recordings (See Gissing’s par 0073).
3. The Pat 699 in view of Gissing discloses the method of claim 2. Pat 699 also discloses the generation and recording of a demonstrations of the application receiving interactions and modifications associated with the nodes (See Pat 699 Claim 1). However, Pat 699 does not disclose “further comprising storing the second demo recording on a server, and wherein running the demonstration comprises retrieving, by the client computer prior to processing the updated set of web page resources, the given second node from the server”. Gissing in the same field of generating web-based recordings teaches this limitation (See Gissing in par 0036 and 0073, and Fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to copy the nodes of a first recording to a second recording as disclosed in Gissing. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a tool that allow the user to subsequent views of a plurality of recordings (See Gissing’s par 0073).
14. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 13. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements (See Pat 699 Claim 1), wherein the code associated with the elements include HTML (See Pat 699 Claim 5). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the modification to the HTML code hides the HTML element”. Gissing in the same field of generating web-based recordings teaches this limitation (See Gissing in par 0074).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to copy the nodes of a first recording to a second recording as disclosed in Gissing. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a tool that allow the user to subsequent views of a plurality of recordings (See Gissing’s par 0073).
17. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 13. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements (See Pat 699 Claim 1), wherein the code associated with the elements include HTML (See Pat 699 Claim 5). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the modification to the HTML code duplicates the HTML element”. Gissing in the same field of generating web-based recordings teaches this limitation (See Gissing in par 0073 – 0074, 0088 and Fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to copy the nodes of a first recording to a second recording as disclosed in Gissing. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a tool that allow the user to subsequent views of a plurality of recordings (See Gissing’s par 0073).
Claims 6, 7 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 15 U.S. Patent No. 12,019,699 (hereinafter, Pat 699) in view of TSABBA (US2020/0110792) (hereinafter, Tsabba).
6. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 5. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements and modification of elements (See Pat 699 Claim 5). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the button comprises button text, and wherein the modification comprises a modification to the button text”. Tsabba in the same field of customizing applications teaches this limitation (See Tsabba par 0087, 0144, 0195 and 0201).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to provide an interface editor in Pat 699 as disclosed in Tsabba. The motivation for doing so would have been to be effectively provide a tool that allow the customization of buttons in an interface, thus increasing accessibility (See Tsabba’s par 0087).
7. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 5. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements and modification of elements (See Pat 699 Claim 5). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the button comprises a button link, and wherein the modification comprises a modification to the button link”. Tsabba in the same field of customizing applications teaches this limitation (See Tsabba par 0087 and 0189).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to provide an interface editor in Pat 699 as disclosed in Tsabba. The motivation for doing so would have been to be effectively provide a tool that allow the customization of buttons in an interface, thus increasing accessibility (See Tsabba’s par 0087).
11. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 1. Pat 699 also discloses that the web page comprises a plurality of elements (See Claims 15 – 18). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the given first web page element comprises a table”. Tsabba in the same field of customizing applications teaches this limitation (See Tsabba par 0127 and 0189).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to provide an interface editor in Pat 699 as disclosed in Tsabba. The motivation for doing so would have been to be effectively provide a tool that allow the customization of buttons in an interface, thus increasing accessibility (See Tsabba’s par 0087).
Claims 15, 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 15 U.S. Patent No. 12,019,699 (hereinafter, Pat 699) in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0004594) (hereinafter, Smith).
15. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 13. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements (See Pat 699 Claims 1 and 15). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the given first web page element comprises an HTML element, wherein the modification modifies the HTML element”. Smith in the same field of recording and displaying demonstration of a webpage teaches this limitation (See Smith par 0065).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to modify HTML elements in Pat 699 as disclosed in Smith. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively change the visual representation of a demonstration by interacting with the HTML elements (See Smith par 0071).
16. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 13. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements (See Pat 699 Claims 1 and 15). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the modification to the HTML code changes the hierarchy of the given html element”. Smith in the same field of recording and displaying demonstration of a webpage teaches this limitation (See Smith par 0062).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to modify HTML elements in Pat 699 as disclosed in Smith. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively change the visual representation of a demonstration by interacting with the HTML elements (See Smith par 0071).
19. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 18. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements (See Pat 699 Claims 1 and 15). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the given first web page element comprises a CSS element, wherein the modification modifies the CSS element”. Smith in the same field of recording and displaying demonstration of a webpage teaches this limitation (See Smith par 0047).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to modify HTML elements in Pat 699 as disclosed in Smith. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively change the visual representation of a demonstration by interacting with the HTML elements (See Smith par 0071).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 15 U.S. Patent No. 12,019,699 (hereinafter, Pat 699) in view of Chiculita et al. (US 2014/0215306) (hereinafter, Chiculita).
20. The Pat 699 discloses the method of claim 18. Pat 699 also discloses the interaction with elements (See Pat 699 Claims 1 and 15). However, Pat 699 does not specifically disclose “wherein the modification comprises a CSS rule that modifies the HTML element”. Chiculita in the same field of customizing webpages teaches this limitation (See Chiculita par 0015, 0022 and 0024).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 699 to modify the webpage in Pat 699 as disclosed in Chiculita. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively modify a plurality of webpage elements by changing a CSS styling rule (See Chiculita’s par 0024).
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8 – 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 26 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2022/0004594) (hereinafter, Smith).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches a method (See Smith’s Abstract), comprising:
generating a demo recording of a web-based application comprising a set of web pages (Smith in par 0033, teaches that a user at client computer can interact with webpage cloning system 126 to clone webpage 136. Webpage cloning system 126 is an integrated development environment used for cloning webpages, such as webpage 136, and user interactions on the webpage for off-line browsing. Webpage cloning system 126 links pages into a workflow and simulates interactions on the page. In this manner, webpage cloning system 126 can create off-line demonstration 138 that mimic the behaviors of the live product), the demo recording comprising a set of nodes corresponding to the web pages, each of the nodes comprising a set of web page resources (Smith in par 0061 and Fig. 3, further teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. For example, change 306 can be added or remove nodes, attribute changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220. Smith in par 0064, further teaches that webpage cloning system 204 records change 306 to document object model 220 cause by user input 302);
retrieving a given node from the demo recording (Smith in par 0074, further teaches that the clone copy is saved to disk and can be reopened by end-users in any web browser, or reopened in the webpage cloning environment for further modification);
processing the set of web page resources in the retrieved node so as render, on a display, a first web page comprising a set of first web page elements (Smith in par 0074, further teaches that the clone copy is saved to disk and can be reopened by end-users in any web browser, or reopened in the webpage cloning environment for further modification. Cloned webpages can be loaded back into the webpage cloning environment and wired up to visually replay the recorded interactions when needed. For example, when thin-layer clone 208 is opened for use by end user, webpage cloning system 204 loads and parses the JSON wire-up files. Webpage cloning system 204 dynamically generates pieces of source code in real-time to represent each of these wire-ups. source code representing these wire-ups is not hard-coded and stored on disk for thin-layer clone 208; rather, webpage cloning system 204 dynamically authors the source code on-the-fly as needed by off-line demonstration 210);
receiving, from a user, an input comprising a modification to a given first web page element (Smith in par 0061 – 0062, further teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. Change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220. Webpage 212 is re-rendered based on change 306 to document object model 220, producing visual change 308 to webpage 212. A webpage may show animations, transitions, or any other kind of visual feedback when a user interacts with elements of the webpage. Each of these visual changes is caused by a change to the document object model. Even a simple visual change 308, such as opening a pop-up graphical overlay prompt or changing a color when hovering over element 304 might require a series of changes to the document object model. Each of these changes to the document object model may also be characterized as a “DOM mutation.”).;
updating the retrieved set of web page resources with the modified first web page element (Smith in par 0061 – 0062, further teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. Change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220. Webpage 212 is re-rendered based on change 306 to document object model 220, producing visual change 308 to webpage 212. A webpage may show animations, transitions, or any other kind of visual feedback when a user interacts with elements of the webpage. Each of these visual changes is caused by a change to the document object model. Even a simple visual change 308, such as opening a pop-up graphical overlay prompt or changing a color when hovering over element 304 might require a series of changes to the document object model. Each of these changes to the document object model may also be characterized as a “DOM mutation.”).; and
running a demonstration of the web-based application by processing, by a client computer, the updated set of web page resources so as render, on the display, a second web page comprising a set of second web page elements (Smith in par 0074, further teaches that the clone copy is saved to disk and can be reopened by end-users in any web browser, or reopened in the webpage cloning environment for further modification. Cloned webpages can be loaded back into the webpage cloning environment and wired up to visually replay the recorded interactions when needed. For example, when thin-layer clone 208 is opened for use by end user, webpage cloning system 204 loads and parses the JSON wire-up files. Webpage cloning system 204 dynamically generates pieces of source code in real-time to represent each of these wire-ups. source code representing these wire-ups is not hard-coded and stored on disk for thin-layer clone 208; rather, webpage cloning system 204 dynamically authors the source code on-the-fly as needed by off-line demonstration 210).
Regarding Claim 4, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises text (Smith in par 0061, teaches 0061, teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. For example, change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first page element comprises a button (Smith in par 0072 – 0073, teaches that the wire-up is a data object that ties together a visual element in thin-layer clone 208, a user action, and an action to preform (recording or function). Each wire up, or an array of wire ups, is saved in a JSON file alongside thin-layer clone 208. For example, a wire up that calls a function “alert” upon a “click” of a visual element “Do a search”).
Regarding Claim 8, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises an image (Smith in par 0037, teaches that the thin-layer clone 134 is integrated HTML document that incorporates elements from webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 that are used by a browser to render and display webpage 136. For example, thin-layer clone 134 can include any HTML, images, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as other static assets that may assist in the layout and styling of webpage 136).
Regarding Claim 9, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises a chart (Smith in par 0060, further teaches that the element 304 is a graphical and/or functional element is an object on the screen that can be manipulated by the user to perform some action. Element 304 may be rendered in webpage 212 based on one or more webpage assets).
Regarding Claim 10, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises a graph (Smith in par 0060, further teaches that the element 304 is a graphical and/or functional element is an object on the screen that can be manipulated by the user to perform some action. Element 304 may be rendered in webpage 212 based on one or more webpage assets).
Regarding Claim 12, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein a given web page resource comprises browser-executable code for a given first web page element (Smith in par 0061 – 0062, further teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. Change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220. Webpage 212 is re-rendered based on change 306 to document object model 220, producing visual change 308 to webpage 212. A webpage may show animations, transitions, or any other kind of visual feedback when a user interacts with elements of the webpage. Each of these visual changes is caused by a change to the document object model. Even a simple visual change 308, such as opening a pop-up graphical overlay prompt or changing a color when hovering over element 304 might require a series of changes to the document object model. Each of these changes to the document object model may also be characterized as a DOM mutation).
Regarding Claim 13, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 12. Smith further teaches:
wherein the browser-executable code comprises HyperText Markup Language (HTML) code (Smith in par 0037, teaches that the webpage cloning system 126 uses webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 to create thin-layer clone 134. Thin-layer clone 134 is integrated HTML document that incorporates elements from webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 that are used by a browser to render and display webpage 136. For example, thin-layer clone 134 can include any HTML, images, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as other static assets that may assist in the layout and styling of webpage 136).
Regarding Claim 15, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 13. Smith further teaches
wherein the given first web page element comprises an HTML element, wherein the modification modifies the HTML element (Smith in par 0065, further teaches that webpage cloning system 204 records change 304 as a data structure that provides an HTML level history of mutations of document object model 220. For example, webpage cloning system 204 can record change 306, including identification 310 of element 304 at an HTML level within document object model 220, and initial state 312 of element 304 in document object model 220, and changed state 314 of element 304 in document object model 220).
Regarding Claim 16, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 13. Smith further teaches:
wherein the first web page elements comprise HTML elements having respective hierarchies, wherein the given first web page element comprises a given HTML element, wherein the modification comprises a modification to the HTML code, and wherein the modification to the HTML code changes the hierarchy of the given html element (Smith in par 0062, teaches that webpage 212 is re-rendered based on change 306 to document object model 220, producing visual change 308 to webpage 212. For example, a webpage may show animations, transitions, or any other kind of visual feedback when a user interacts with elements of the webpage. Each of these visual changes is caused by a change to the document object model. Even a simple visual change 308, such as opening a pop-up graphical overlay prompt or changing a color when hovering over element 304 might require a series of changes to the document object model. Each of these changes to the document object model may also be characterized as a “DOM mutation.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 12. Smith further teaches:
wherein the browser-executable code comprises Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) code (Smith in par 0037, teaches that the webpage cloning system 126 uses webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 to create thin-layer clone 134. Thin-layer clone 134 is integrated HTML document that incorporates elements from webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 that are used by a browser to render and display webpage 136. For example, thin-layer clone 134 can include any HTML, images, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as other static assets that may assist in the layout and styling of webpage 136).
Regarding Claim 19, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 18. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises a CSS element, wherein the modification modifies the CSS element (Smith in par 0047, teaches that webpage cloning system 204 receives webpage assets 214 for webpage 212. As depicted, webpage assets 214 are stored on a database, and can include any images, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as other resources, that are suitable resources. Webpage assets 214 can also include any HTML files, such as webpage file 128 of FIG. 1, which can alternatively be stored on Web server 216. Smith in par 0061 – 0062, further teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. Change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220. Webpage 212 is re-rendered based on change 306 to document object model 220, producing visual change 308 to webpage 212).
Regarding Claim 21, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 12. Smith further teaches:
wherein the browser-executable code comprises JavaScript code (Smith in par 0037, teaches that the webpage cloning system 126 uses webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 to create thin-layer clone 134. Thin-layer clone 134 is integrated HTML document that incorporates elements from webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 that are used by a browser to render and display webpage 136. For example, thin-layer clone 134 can include any HTML, images, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as other static assets that may assist in the layout and styling of webpage 136).
Regarding Claim 22, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein a given web page resource comprises an image (Smith in par 0037, teaches that the thin-layer clone 134 is integrated HTML document that incorporates elements from webpage file 128 and webpage assets 130 that are used by a browser to render and display webpage 136. For example, thin-layer clone 134 can include any HTML, images, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as other static assets that may assist in the layout and styling of webpage 136).
Regarding Claim 26, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein a given web page resource comprises an icon (Smith in par 0072 – 0073, teaches that the wire-up is a data object that ties together a visual element in thin-layer clone 208, a user action, and an action to preform (recording or function). Each wire up, or an array of wire ups, is saved in a JSON file alongside thin-layer clone 208. For example, a wire up that calls a function “alert” upon a “click” of a visual element “Do a search”).
Regarding Claim 27, this Claim merely recites an apparatus, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors configured to perform instructions as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Smith discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 27, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 28, this Claim merely recites a computer software product for controlling operation of a computer, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a computer, cause the computer to operate as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Smith discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 27, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Gissing et al. (US 2018/0123934) (hereinafter, Gissing).
Regarding Claim 2, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
wherein the demo recording comprises a first demo recording, wherein the nodes comprise first nodes, wherein the retrieved node comprises a given first node (Smith in par 0065 – 006, teaches that webpage cloning system 204 records change 304 as a data structure that provides an HTML level history of mutations of document object model 220. Webpage cloning system 204 can record change 306, including identification 310 of element 304 at an HTML level within document object model 220, an initial state 312 of element 304 in document object model 220, and changed state 314 in document object model 220. Webpage cloning system 204 records change 306 to document object model 220 by recording sequence of changes 316 to document object model 220. Smith in par 0070, further teaches that recording change 306 to document object model 220 includes serializing change 306 into JSON object 322. Webpage cloning system 204 then locally stores JSON object 322 in association with identifier 324 that is unique to JSON object 322), and
However, Smith does not specifically disclose further comprising copying the first nodes to a set of corresponding second nodes in a second demo recording, and saving the modified web page element to a given second node corresponding to the given first node.
Gissing in par 0073 – 0075, and Fig. 4, teaches that instead of starting a new test, the user may choose a former recording to play back. The user interface 400 includes a former recordings section 410 from which the user can select from one or more previously saved recordings 412. Each recording includes a webpage and one or more user actions. The user interface 400 may display the webpage and any other identifying information for the user, and the user may select to play back a recording by clicking on the replay button 414. The server 100 generates a recording interface 510 to be displayed on the user interface 500 during the testing. The recording interface 510 may generally include a recorded actions section 512 that details each recorded user action. As the webpage was just loaded in the example of FIG. 5, no user actions have yet to be detected by the inserted code and recorded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Gissing with the teachings as in Smith to provide the user of smith with the capability of generate recordings from a previous recording as disclosed in Gissing. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a tool that allow the user to subsequent views of a plurality of recordings (See Gissing’s par 0073).
Regarding Claim 3, Smith in view of Gissing teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 2. Gissing further teaches:
and further comprising storing the second demo recording on a server, and wherein running the demonstration comprises retrieving, by the client computer prior to processing the updated set of web page resources, the given second node from the server (Gissing in par 0036, teaches that the server 100 may receive the request from the user device 150 and load the webpage associated with the request (via the Internet 160). The server 100 may rewrite the source code of the webpage and forward the webpage with the rewritten source code for display on the browser 152 of the user device 150. The rewritten code causes a recording function to be displayed on the browser 152, providing testing features to the user. The user may then perform one or more user actions that are recorded and displayed on the recording function. The editing of the webpage code occurs entirely at the server 100 instead of at the browser 152 or user device 150, thereby bypassing the need to install anything at the user device 150 for the testing process. Gissing in par 0073, further teaches that the recording information may be stored either locally at the user device 150 and retrieved and displayed on the user interface 400 when the webpage is loaded in the browser, or stored elsewhere at a server in a network environment).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 13. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises an HTML element, wherein the modification comprises a modification to the HTML code (Smith in par 0065, further teaches that webpage cloning system 204 records change 304 as a data structure that provides an HTML level history of mutations of document object model 220. For example, webpage cloning system 204 can record change 306, including identification 310 of element 304 at an HTML level within document object model 220, and initial state 312 of element 304 in document object model 220, and changed state 314 of element 304 in document object model 220), and
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein the modification to the HTML code hides the HTML element.
Gissing in par 0074, teaches that at the user interface 500 of FIG. 5, the user has selected to initiate a new test. In the example of FIG. 5, the example webpage is loaded and includes a login prompt including two text fields for a username 502 and password 504 and two buttons 506, 508. The webpage presented in the user interface 500 has been rewritten by the server 100, and provided from the server 100 to the user device 150, as described above. However, as noted above, the functionality and appearance of the webpage is the same as if the webpage had been loaded directly from the Internet instead of server 100. The actions of server 100 to rewrite the URLs of the webpage are hidden to the user. For example, the URL associated with the clicking of the OK button 506 has been rewritten.
Gissing in par 0088 and Fig. 12, further teaches that the process 1200 further includes rewriting, at the server, the source code of the webpage. The source code may be HTML code, JavaScript code, ECMAScript code, or any other type of code. The rewriting may generally include the insertion of code. For example, rewriting the source code generally includes injecting a first code segment into the existing code of the webpage, wherein the first code segment causes a rewriting function to be called, wherein the rewriting function rewrites one or more static URLs on the webpage such that a selection of a rewritten URL is redirected to the server (block 1206). Rewriting the source code generally further includes injecting a second code segment into the existing code of the webpage to cause a recording function to be provided on the webpage (block 1208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Gissing with the teachings as in Smith to provide the user of smith with the capability of generate recordings from a previous recording as disclosed in Gissing. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a tool that allow the user to subsequent views of a plurality of recordings (See Gissing’s par 0073).
Regarding Claim 17, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 13. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises an HTML element, wherein the modification comprises a modification to the HTML code (Smith in par 0065, further teaches that webpage cloning system 204 records change 304 as a data structure that provides an HTML level history of mutations of document object model 220. For example, webpage cloning system 204 can record change 306, including identification 310 of element 304 at an HTML level within document object model 220, and initial state 312 of element 304 in document object model 220, and changed state 314 of element 304 in document object model 220), and
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein the modification to the HTML code duplicates the HTML element.
Gissing in par 0073 – 0075, and Fig. 4, teaches that instead of starting a new test, the user may choose a former recording to play back. The user interface 400 includes a former recordings section 410 from which the user can select from one or more previously saved recordings 412. Each recording includes a webpage and one or more user actions. The user interface 400 may display the webpage and any other identifying information for the user, and the user may select to play back a recording by clicking on the replay button 414. The server 100 generates a recording interface 510 to be displayed on the user interface 500 during the testing. The recording interface 510 may generally include a recorded actions section 512 that details each recorded user action. As the webpage was just loaded in the example of FIG. 5, no user actions have yet to be detected by the inserted code and recorded. Gissing in par 0088 and Fig. 12, further teaches rewriting the source code generally further includes injecting a second code segment into the existing code of the webpage to cause a recording function to be provided on the webpage (block 1208). For example, a code shimming process can be used that includes intercepting a request related to a URL and modifying the URL in the source code of the webpage. In other words, before associating a URL with a particular webpage element, the code shimming process causes the URL to be modified such that selecting the URL causes a redirection to the server instead of the actual URL. The process 1200 further includes forwarding, at the server, the webpage with the rewritten source code for presentation to a browser of the user device (block 1210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Gissing with the teachings as in Smith to provide the user of smith with the capability of generate recordings from a previous recording as disclosed in Gissing. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a tool that allow the user to subsequent views of a plurality of recordings (See Gissing’s par 0073).
Claims 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of TSABBA (US 2020/0110792) (hereinafter, Tsabba).
Regarding Claim 6, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 5.
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein the button comprises button text, and wherein the modification comprises a modification to the button text.
Tsabba teaches a website interface within a customizable application builder with no code visualization tils for an application creation user (See Tsabba’s Abstract). Tsabba in par 0087, further teaches that when using custom translate settings a user can control all the labels, captions, user tips, button text in a form, and can create different translations to as many languages as desired. Tsabba in par 0201, further teaches that a custom translation feature will allow the user to use this feature to control all the labels, captions, user tips, button text in a form, and can create different translations to as many languages as the user selects. Tsabba in par 0144, further teaches that the user can open ‘Buttons & labels’ category and enter a different text for the finish button. Tsabba in par 0195 and Fig. 32, further teaches that Buttons & Labels properties:Finish/Close button text: if a user decides to turn on the ‘preview before submit’ option, the user can change the text on the buttons at the bottom of it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Tsabba with the teachings as in Smith, to provide an interface editor in Smith as disclosed in Tsabba. The motivation for doing so would have been to be effectively provide a tool that allow the customization of buttons in an interface, thus increasing accessibility (See Tsabba’s par 0087).
Regarding Claim 7, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 5.
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein the button comprises a button link, and wherein the modification comprises a modification to the button link.
Tsabba teaches a website interface within a customizable application builder with no code visualization tils for an application creation user (See Tsabba’s Abstract). Tsabba in par 0087, further teaches that when using custom translate settings a user can control all the labels, captions, user tips, button text in a form, and can create different translations to as many languages as desired. Tsabba in par 0189, further teaches that additional settings buttons include features including Add and remove buttons in repeated section, Add script after button completes its task, Move to a specific page using the Salesforce Action button, button type: Redirect, Page break with flexible next/prev buttons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Tsabba with the teachings as in Smith, to provide an interface editor in Smith as disclosed in Tsabba. The motivation for doing so would have been to be effectively provide a tool that allow the customization of buttons in an interface, thus increasing accessibility (See Tsabba’s par 0087).
Regarding Claim 11, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 5.
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein the given first web page element comprises a table.
Tsabba teaches a website interface within a customizable application builder with no code visualization tils for an application creation user (See Tsabba’s Abstract). Tsabba in par 0087, further teaches that when using custom translate settings a user can control all the labels, captions, user tips, button text in a form, and can create different translations to as many languages as desired. Tsabba in par 0127 and Fig. 8, further teaches that in dynamic Mode the editor will change, allowing a user to insert HTML code, play with styling and even use a table element for displaying repeated section items dynamically. Tsabba in par 0189, further teaches that additional settings buttons include features including Add and remove buttons in repeated section and Styles for buttons in Table element including alignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Tsabba with the teachings as in Smith, to provide an interface editor in Smith as disclosed in Tsabba. The motivation for doing so would have been to be effectively provide a tool that allow the customization of buttons in an interface, thus increasing accessibility (See Tsabba’s par 0087).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Chiculita et al. (US 2014/0215306) (hereinafter, Chiculita).
Regarding Claim 20, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 18. Smith further teaches:
wherein the given first web page element comprises an HTML element, wherein the modification comprises a modification to the CSS code (Smith in par 0047, teaches that webpage cloning system 204 receives webpage assets 214 for webpage 212. As depicted, webpage assets 214 are stored on a database, and can include any images, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as other resources, that are suitable resources. Webpage assets 214 can also include any HTML files, such as webpage file 128 of FIG. 1, which can alternatively be stored on Web server 216. Smith in par 0061 – 0062, further teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. Change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220. Webpage 212 is re-rendered based on change 306 to document object model 220, producing visual change 308 to webpage 212), and
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein the modification comprises a CSS rule that modifies the HTML element.
Chiculita in par 0015, teaches that as rendered by a browser application, the web page may include output elements provided by hypertext markup language ("HTML") code. The HTML code may be generated by accessing a template file specifying a layout for the web page, accessing a data source including data to be included in the web page, and generating the HTML code that includes the data organized as specified by the layout. Chiculita in par 0022, further teaches that the appearance of a web page can be modified by modifying the associated CSS file. For example, an editor application can modify one or more settings specified by the CSS file and detect what HTML elements are affected by modifications to the settings. Chiculita in par 0024, further teaches that the editing application can be used to modify multiple types of editable content, such as data from one or more data sources, data coming from one or more template files, style information (e.g., CSS styling), etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Chiculita with the teachings as in Smith, to modify the webpage in Smith with the webpage editor as disclosed in Chiculita. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively modify a plurality of webpage elements by changing a CSS styling rule (See Chiculita’s par 0024).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Denoue et al. (US 2019/0392057) (hereinafter, Denoue).
Regarding Claim 23, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
Smith in par 0061, teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. For example, change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220.
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein a given web page resource comprises a font.
Denoue teaches a method for detection of text and image differences between versions of documents, and generating an animation to indicate the differences between versions (See Denoue’s Abstract). Denoue in par 0026 – 0029 and Fig. 2, further teaches that given a set of slides, the first step automatically finds pairs of slides: this step uses text and image differences to rank possible matches. At 200, for a given pair of slides S1 and S2 for example from FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b) that are two versions of the “same” slide, the process starts from extracting the textual content of both slides along with its attributes (known as “attributed strings”), a data structure that contains the textual content along with its position and font attributes (e.g., size, color, family, style, weight), the image content of both slides such as image bitmap and attributes (e.g., position, transform like rotation), and the shapes of both slides such as lines (e.g., start, end, line style), and rectangles (e.g., textual content, position and styles) as illustrated at 201 and 202. Information can also be provided from document platforms that provide information regarding changes, such as track changes, history of edits, or document object model (DOM). For example, DOM can be utilized to determine text boxes and their locations for a given slide in a slide platform application. If changes occurred for the text boxes and/or the locations, then those changes can be determined from the DOM.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Denoue with the teachings as in Smith in order to include font attributes in the attributes tracked in Smith as disclosed in Denoue. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively generate an animation showing all changes between versions (See Denoue’s Abstract and par 0022).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Toksoz et al. (US 2019/0079787) (hereinafter, Toksoz).
Regarding Claim 24, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
Smith in par 0061, teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. For example, change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220.
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein a given web page resource comprises an audio file.
Toksoz teaches an execution environment of an application, a third-party media stream distinct from the application, received from a remote host server via a network. The client system detects interaction events during presentation of the third-party media stream, and transmits descriptions of the detected interaction events to the remote host server (See Toksoz’s abstract). Toksoz in par 0019, further teaches that an audio-visual media stream is sent is sent from the preview host server to the client device for presentation. If a user of the client device interacts with the presented media stream, interaction data is sent back to the preview host where the interaction is then recreated in the simulation execution environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Toksoz with the teachings as in Smith in order to include audio-visual as one of the resources provided in Smith as disclosed in Denoue. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively record user interaction with all elements associated with the presented webpage and effectively recreate the interaction (See Toksoz’s Abstract and par 0019).
Regarding Claim 25, Smith teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Smith further teaches:
Smith in par 0061, teaches that interactions with element 304 produce change 306 to document object model 220. For example, change 306 can be added or removed nodes, attribute changes or changes in the text content of text nodes, as well as other changes to document object model 220.
However, Smith does not specifically disclose wherein a given web page resource comprises a video file.
Toksoz teaches an execution environment of an application, a third-party media stream distinct from the application, received from a remote host server via a network. The client system detects interaction events during presentation of the third-party media stream, and transmits descriptions of the detected interaction events to the remote host server (See Toksoz’s abstract). Toksoz in par 0019, teaches that an audio-visual media stream is sent is sent from the preview host server to the client device for presentation. If a user of the client device interacts with the presented media stream, interaction data is sent back to the preview host where the interaction is then recreated in the simulation execution environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Toksoz with the teachings as in Smith in order to include audio-visual as one of the resources provided in Smith as disclosed in Denoue. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively record user interaction with all elements associated with the presented webpage and effectively recreate the interaction (See Toksoz’s Abstract and par 0019).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights