CTNF 18/765,861 CTNF 81892 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings filed on: 07/08/2024 are accepted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 – 35 § USC 101 Analysis: With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a system, which is directed to one of the statutory categories. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. A computing system, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are to cause the processor to: obtain web content of a webpage; determine whether the web content complies with defined first requirements for user accessibility; in response to determining that the web content does not comply with the first requirements: identify non-compliant web content elements of the webpage; and present, via a user interface of a source code editor: indications of first portions of source code for the webpage corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements ; and a user interface element representing an action for altering one or more of the non-compliant web content elements. More specifically, with regards to “obtain web content of a webpage; determine whether the web content complies with defined first requirements for user accessibility; in response to determining that the web content does not comply with the first requirements: identify non-compliant web content elements of the webpage”, a person can manually evaluate web content of a webpage, manually make an evaluation of whether web content complies with first requirements and manually make a judgement of web content elements being non-compliant with respect to the manually evaluated first-requirements. With regards to “indications of first portions of source code for the webpage corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements”, a person can manually make a judgement to manually convey /identify first portions of source code (such as via annotation/writing). Step 2A, Prong Two: With regards to the additional elements of : “A computing system, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are to cause the processor to …”, these additional elements amount to recitation of a computer to perform the limitations of the method and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s) and therefore fails to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. The courts have identified using the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception to be insufficient to integrating a judicial exception into a practical application (does not integrate a judicial exception in to a practical application). “and present, via a user interface of a source code editor: … and a user interface element representing an action for altering one or more of the non-compliant web content elements” , these additional elements are considered insignificant extra solution activity (for example as explained in MPEP 2106.05(g): “ Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). The courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner further notes that the scope of the limitation ‘user interface element representing an action ….’, only needs to depicts a visual ‘representation’ of the action under BRI. Step 2B: As explained with respect above in Step 2A, Prong Two, there are the additional elements of: “A computing system, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are to cause the processor to …”, are elements considered as ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception using generic computer/generic computer components. The courts have found these types of limitations to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984). “and present, via a user interface of a source code editor: … and a user interface element representing an action for altering one or more of the non-compliant web content elements” , these additional elements were explained in 2A, Prong two to be insignificant extra solution activity and the courts have found these types of limitations to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements are not considered significantly more than the recited exception and also do not provide an inventive concept. 101 Analysis of claims 3-7 and 9-10 Dependent claims 3-7 and 9-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception for mental process(es) (‘obtaining the web content …’, ‘the first requirements comprise …’, ‘determining whether the web content complies …’)) that include additional elements (such as: ‘… present, via the user interface of the source code editor, indications of recommended modifications …’, ‘.. the recommended modifications comprise …’, ‘.. present , via the user interface .. indications … ‘, ‘ … retrieve current requirements …’, and ‘ … to store the retrieved …’) that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (as the additional elements are insignificant extra solution activit(ies)). 101 Analysis of claim 11 Claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. 101 Analysis of claims 13-17, 19 and 20 Dependent claims 13-17, 19 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception for mental process(es) (‘obtaining the web content …’, ‘the first requirements comprise …’, ‘determining whether the web content complies …’)) that include additional elements (such as: ‘… present, via the user interface of the source code editor, indications of recommended modifications …’, ‘.. the recommended modifications comprise …’, ‘.. present , via the user interface .. indications … ‘, ‘ … retrieve current requirements …’, and ‘ … to store the retrieved …’) that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (as the additional elements are insignificant extra solution activit(ies)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Springer (US Application: US 20040148568, published: Jul. 29, 2004, filed: Oct. 19, 2001) . With regards to claim 1, Springer teaches a computing system, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (claim 26: processor is implemented to execute instructions), are to cause the processor to: obtain web content of a webpage (paragraph 0007: a webpage containing content written via HTML code is obtained); determine whether the web content complies with defined first requirements for user accessibility (paragraph 0007: the content is checked to comply with Section 408 accessibility requirements ); in response to determining that the web content does not comply with the first requirements: identify non-compliant web content elements of the webpage (paragraph 0007: non-compliant elements are identified/flagged for non-compliances/violation); and present, via a user interface of a source code editor: indications of first portions of source code for the webpage corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements (paragraph 0007, Figure 1: a user interface displays portions of source code corresponding to flagged violations); and a user interface element representing an action for altering one or more of the non-compliant web content elements (paragraphs 0007 and 0017, Figure 1: a ‘fix’ button (ref 63) element represents confirmation to perform an action to alter non-compliant element(s)). With regards to claim 2. The computing system of claim 1, Springer teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to: receive, via a computing device, user input of selection of the user interface element; and in response to receiving the user input, modify the first portions of the source code corresponding to one or more of the non-compliant web content elements (Figure 1, paragraph 0017: when the user selects the ‘fix’ button, portion(s) of the source code (HTML) corresponding to one or more of the violation(s) is modified). With regards to claim 3. The computing system of claim 1, Springer teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to present, via the user interface of the source code editor, indications of recommended modifications to the first portions of the source code corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements (paragraph 0017: recommendations/description of the proposed changes are displayed to the user). With regards to claim 4. The computing system of claim 3, Springer teaches wherein the recommended modifications comprise replacement code for the first portions of the source code corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements (paragraph 0017: a change that is fully automatic to the HTML code can be suggested /recommended ). With regards to claim 5. The computing system of claim 1, Springer teaches wherein obtaining the web content comprises performing a scan of the webpage to obtain at least one of text, visual, or auditory content associated with the webpage (paragraph 0015: the webpage is scanned for a variety of elements including image/visual elements for compliance (such as ensuring alt. text is associated with image(s)). With regards to claim 6. The computing system of claim 1, Springer teaches wherein the first requirements comprise a set of testable content criteria and wherein determining whether the web content complies with the first requirements comprises determining whether the web content satisfies at least one of the content criteria (paragraph 0015: first content criteria can be defined by particular paragraphs of section 1194.22 and web content is analyzed for compliance against the criteria for compliance). With regards to claim 7. The computing system of claim 6, Springer teaches wherein determining whether the web content complies with the first requirements comprises determining whether the web content satisfies all of the content criteria (paragraph 0014: all content criteria established by particular paragraphs are checked for compliance). With regards to claim 8. The computing system of claim 1, Springer teaches wherein the indications comprise graphical indicators for distinguishing the first portions from other portions of the source code for the webpage (Figure 1, paragraphs 0015 and 0016: relevant portions associated with violations/compliance issues are distinguished/displayed to the user). With regards to claim 11, Springer teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining web content of a webpage; determining whether the web content complies with defined first requirements for user accessibility; in response to determining that the web content does not comply with the first requirements: identifying non-compliant web content elements of the webpage; and presenting, via a user interface of a source code editor: indications of first portions of source code for the webpage corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements; and a user interface element representing an action for altering one or more of the non-compliant web content elements, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 12. The method of claim 11, Springer teaches further comprising: receiving, via a computing device, user input of selection of the user interface element; and in response to receiving the user input, modifying the first portions of the source code corresponding to one or more of the non-compliant web content elements, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 13. The method of claim 11, Springer teaches further comprising presenting, via the user interface of the source code editor, indications of recommended modifications to the first portions of the source code corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 14. The method of claim 13, Springer teaches wherein the recommended modifications comprise replacement code for the first portions of the source code corresponding to the non-compliant web content elements, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 15. The method of claim 11, Springer teaches wherein obtaining the web content comprises performing a scan of the webpage to obtain at least one of text, visual, or auditory content associated with the webpage, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 16. The method of claim 11, Springer teaches wherein the first requirements comprise a set of testable content criteria and wherein determining whether the web content complies with the first requirements comprises determining whether the web content satisfies at least one of the content criteria, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 17. The method of claim 16, Springer teaches wherein determining whether the web content complies with the first requirements comprises determining whether the web content satisfies all of the content criteria, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 18. The method of claim 11, Springer teaches wherein the indications comprise graphical indicators for distinguishing the first portions from other portions of the source code for the webpage, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9, 10, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer (US Application: US 20040148568, published: Jul. 29, 2004, filed: Oct. 19, 2001) in view of Vinci (US Application: US 20060282771, published: Dec. 14, 2006, filed: Jun. 10, 2005) . With regards to claim 9. The computing system of claim 1, Springer teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to : … wherein compliance of the web content with the first requirements is assessed using … requirements, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. However Springer does not expressly teach retrieve current requirements for user accessibility in connection with the webpage; wherein compliance … with the first requirements is accessed using the current requirements . Yet Vinci teaches retrieve current requirements for user accessibility in connection with the webpage; wherein compliance … with the first requirements is accessed using the current requirements (Fig. 1, paragraph 0045: current requirements in the form of rules are first retrieved/obtained, and after retrieval, subsequently referenced for comparison (referencing the obtained rules post retrieval, is interpreted as those rules being stored/within-memory). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Springer’s ability to check compliance by referencing requirements, such that the requirements could be retrieved as current requirements as taught by Vinci. The combination would have allowed Springer to have verified document compliance against an established and also accessible subsidiary standard while also enabling an efficient way to address compliance issues for the document(s). With regards to claim 10. The computing system of claim 9, the combination of Springer and Vinci teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to store the retrieved current requirements for user accessibility in the memory, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 19. The method of claim 11, the combination of Springer and Vinci teaches further comprising retrieving current requirements for user accessibility in connection with the webpage and wherein compliance of the web content with the first requirements is assessed using the current requirements, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale. With regards to claim 20. The method of claim 19 , the combination of Springer and Vinci teaches further comprising storing the retrieved current requirements for user accessibility in the memory, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yee (US Application: US 20090113287): This reference teaches implementing an automated accessibility check of web pages with respect to accessibility standards. Cherry et al (US Application: US 20060277250): This reference teaches checking accessibility of a web application using a plug in. Haunschild et al (US Application: US 20030217036): This reference teaches identifying necessary tasks to achieve compliance using a interactive web site system. Deshmukh et al (US Application: US 20210081165): This reference teaches implementing a web page accessibility testing tool to identify and record violations. Gur-esh et al (US Application: US 20140351796): This reference teaches web page accessibility compliance testing using code injection. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 2 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 3 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 4 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 5 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 6 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 8 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 9 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 10 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 11 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 12 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 13 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 14 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/765,861 Page 15 Art Unit: 2172
Prosecution Insights