Detailed Action
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 responsive to the IDS filed 3/15/2026. As per the claims filed 8/11/2024:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 11 is/are independent claims.
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. 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.
Note Regarding AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas A. Baldwin et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0048605; Published: 02/18/2016)(hereinafter: Baldwin) in view of Jorge Peraza et al. (US PG Pub No. 2012/0110438; Published: 05/03/2012)(hereinafter: Peraza).
Note: Baldwin was cited on the IDS filed 8/11/2024.
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Baldwin discloses a website building system (WBS), the WBS comprising:
at least one processor [[0026] general purpose computer] and
an edit handler running on said at least one processor to receive an editing action and a change in display width parameters from a designer of said WBS and to define changes to components of a page of a website of said WBS according to said editing action and said changed display width parameters [¶ [0038] the authoring system can select a preview for each device type. This selection can be based upon a predetermined set of commonly used devices. However, an author may request or indicate that the authoring system provide additional previews to accommodate other displays or devices such as higher resolution computing device displays with larger visible areas for portraying webpages to a user, as described in block 240. When the system is so instructed, it may include the indicated as additional previews with the first set of initial previews already displayed to the user, as indicated in block 245; ¶ [0041] each preview and corresponding rendered instance has been displayed to the author, the system may then proceed to handle layout rules violations as shown in block 290. As discussed herein, the handling of rules violations may include adjusting break points and potentially creating new previews for any break point gaps created by the adjustment]. Different devices have different screen sizes with corresponding different width parameters.
, said edit handler comprising:
a dynamic layout handler to process dynamic layout triggers associated with said editing action and to modify a layout of said page accordingly [[0020] Responsive designs can use media queries and/or use device detection services to trigger change in presentation based on capabilities/attributes. They can also have a fluid layout, with containers that dynamically scale to available dimensions, and fluid content, with images are explicitly set to scale to their parent container. Using responsive design, a website can deliver different representations of an image based on the device's capabilities, including the device's viewport.];
a layout handler to calculate updated layouts for said page according to formulas based on said changed display width parameters [[0020, 0043-0046]] content changes according to display size (which can vary in width). Containers are dynamic in the sense that they can scale according to display size, it follows that layouts are based on formulas depending on the display size.
a visibility handler to manage hiding and unhiding of components for pre-defined breakpoint ranges for said page [[0033] While there may be many breakpoints used in a responsive design, the system can support a subset of more important breakpoints, e.g., breakpoints associated with targeted at the primary devices used by the key audience segments. These breakpoints can be predetermined (e.g., set manually by designers or calculated by the system based on analytics and detection of user agents/capabilities). These pre-determined breakpoints can then be used to identify an initial set of displays to be reviewed by the author.[0035] Based on the selections made by the author for the primary displays/breakpoints, the system can then identify additional displays/breakpoints for previewing before final acceptance. The system can be configured to use the prior author inputs from the initial displays to ‘fill in’ what to do between these breakpoints, and help identify in-between steps that may need further attention.] Users can arrange breakpoints which will hide/unhide content from current page/display. and
a component handler to adapt attributes of said components according to responsive affecting parameters modified by said editing action [[0022] Responsive designs can use media queries and/or use device detection services to trigger change in presentation based on capabilities/attributes. They can also have a fluid layout, with containers that dynamically scale to available dimensions, and fluid content, with images are explicitly set to scale to their parent container. Using responsive design, a website can deliver different representations of an image based on the device's capabilities, including the device's viewport.[0043] The author may therefore decide to modify the preview. This may include clipping (at smaller sizes rather than scaling) using an inline display editing tool. The author may also control the offset margins to place the clipped area as desired. A smaller image rendition can then created and CSS style info is noted for display of the corresponding rendition within this layout/breakpoint.].
Baldwin discloses a webpage authoring tool to generate pages that conform to multiple viewport sizes. Baldwin failed to specifically disclose
a text scaler to scale text between minimal and maximal values according to said changed display width parameters;
Peraza, in the same field of width-based webpage editing discloses this limitation in that [[0053] layout module 616 includes font scaling module 114, which performs proportional font scaling as described herein, as part of the analysis of the parsed web page content that is performed by the layout module… The font scaling module 114 is implemented as part of the layout module 616 because the proportional font scaling that is to be performed may alter the height and/or position of one or more web page elements [0061] the web page element widths are determined. For Example, parser 614 passes its results to layout module 616, which analyzes the web page content that has been parsed, and determines the width of each container. [0062] At block 708, the web page fonts are proportionally scaled. For example, as part of layout module 616, font scaling module 114 calculates new font sizes for web page elements that contain text. An example process for proportionally scaling the font sizes is described in further detail below with reference to FIG. 8.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the web page of Baldwin to include a text scaler to scale text between minimal and maximal values according to said changed display width parameters as disclosed by Peraza. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce horizontal scrolling and improve user experience (0018).
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose wherein said dynamic layout handler processes said dynamic layout triggers by: receiving a content change to a component; determining if said content change affects position of said component; and modifying the layout of other components on said page based on said size or position change. Baldwin, [[0020] Responsive designs can use media queries and/or use device detection services to trigger change in presentation based on capabilities/attributes. They can also have a fluid layout, with containers that dynamically scale to available dimensions, and fluid content, with images are explicitly set to scale to their parent container. Using responsive design, a website can deliver different representations of an image based on the device's capabilities, including the device's viewport. [0031] A preview model can specify displays/breakpoints and facilitate their management. This preview module can also provide for dynamic layouts to be used. The system can be configure to matches a layout and breakpoint(s) to the most appropriate image rendition. The system can use an extension to the image object to record what action to take on renditions between breakpoints based upon input from the author and using a user interface].
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose wherein said layout handler calculates said updated layouts by: determining a current breakpoint range based on said changed display width parameters; selecting a layout formula associated with said current breakpoint range; and applying said selected layout formula to calculate positions and sizes of components on said page [[0031] A preview model can specify displays/breakpoints and facilitate their management. This preview module can also provide for dynamic layouts to be used. The system can be configure to matches a layout and breakpoint(s) to the most appropriate image rendition. The system can use an extension to the image object to record what action to take on renditions between breakpoints based upon input from the author and using a user interface [0035] Based on the selections made by the author for the primary displays/breakpoints, the system can then identify additional displays/breakpoints for previewing before final acceptance. The system can be configured to use the prior author inputs from the initial displays to ‘fill in’ what to do between these breakpoints, and help identify in-between steps that may need further attention.].
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 1, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above. Additionally, Baldwin and Peraza disclose wherein said text scaler scales text by: determining a scaling factor based on said changed display width parameters; applying said scaling factor to a base font size to determine a scaled font size; and adjusting font size of text components on said page to said scaled font size. Peraza [[0053] layout module 616 includes font scaling module 114, which performs proportional font scaling as described herein, as part of the analysis of the parsed web page content that is performed by the layout module… The font scaling module 114 is implemented as part of the layout module 616 because the proportional font scaling that is to be performed may alter the height and/or position of one or more web page elements [0061] the web page element widths are determined. For Example, parser 614 passes its results to layout module 616, which analyzes the web page content that has been parsed, and determines the width of each container. [0062] At block 708, the web page fonts are proportionally scaled. For example, as part of layout module 616, font scaling module 114 calculates new font sizes for web page elements that contain text. An example process for proportionally scaling the font sizes is described in further detail below with reference to FIG. 8.].
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose wherein said component handler changes component attributes by: identifying responsive attributes of components that are affected by said responsive affecting parameters; determining new values for said responsive attributes based on said modified responsive affecting parameters; and updating identified responsive attributes with said new values. Baldwin, [[0022] Responsive designs can use media queries and/or use device detection services to trigger change in presentation based on capabilities/attributes. They can also have a fluid layout, with containers that dynamically scale to available dimensions, and fluid content, with images are explicitly set to scale to their parent container. Using responsive design, a website can deliver different representations of an image based on the device's capabilities, including the device's viewport.[0043] The author may therefore decide to modify the preview. This may include clipping (at smaller sizes rather than scaling) using an inline display editing tool. The author may also control the offset margins to place the clipped area as desired. A smaller image rendition can then created and CSS style info is noted for display of the corresponding rendition within this layout/breakpoint.]. components respond to changes in display size, attributes are modified based on changes and updates shown to the author.
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose further comprising at least one database to store website pages and layouts comprising fluid components and breakpoint ranges for multiple viewport sizes, said fluid components having size and attributes affected by parent components in a container arrangement. Baldwin, [[0019] the system can help the author ensure that the cascading style sheet file or HTML file includes page layout instructions for each possible display type. The system can be configured to identify, such as when an author makes adjustments to a webpage layout that applies different instructions from a CSS file, any problems, such as gaps between break points and other issues or discrepancies. [0063-0066] storage].
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose further comprising a previewer to provide a WYSIWYG preview of application of edits according to said edit handler. Baldwin, [[0043] The author may therefore decide to modify the preview. This may include clipping (at smaller sizes rather than scaling) using an inline display editing tool. The author may also control the offset margins to place the clipped area as desired. A smaller image rendition can then created and CSS style info is noted for display of the corresponding rendition within this layout/breakpoints].
Claim 11:
As per independent claim 11, it recites the method executed by the system of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 2 above.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 6 above.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 9 above.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 10 above.
Claims 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Peraza in view of Sean C. Stancell et al. (US Patent No. 10614156; Date of Patent: 04/07/2020) (hereinafter: Stancell).
Note: Stancell was cited in the 8/11/2024 IDS.
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose users can arrange breakpoints which will hide/unhide content from current page/display. Baldwin and Peraza failed to specifically disclose wherein said visibility handler manages hiding and unhiding of components by: storing visibility rules associated with each component for different breakpoint ranges; determining a current breakpoint range based on said changed display width parameters; and applying visibility rules for current breakpoint range to show or hide components accordingly.
Stancell, in the same field of creating adaptive webpages discloses these limitations in that [claim 1, generating, by the computer, a plurality of first style rules, including at least one font size and an indication that at least one of the one or more content items is hidden, that define how the first content layout should be displayed on a device having the first device characteristics based on the received indicia of one or more first device characteristics; rendering a preview of the adaptive webpage based on the first style rules, the preview identifying each of the at least one of the one or more content items that is hidden in the preview of the adaptive webpage; creating a first configuration breakpoint corresponding to the first style rules; and saving the first configuration breakpoint and the first style rules in a style sheet corresponding to the adaptive webpage.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the visibility handlers of Baldwin to store visibility rules associated with each component for different breakpoint ranges; determine a current breakpoint range based on said changed display width parameters; and apply visibility rules for current breakpoint range to show or hide components accordingly as disclosed by Stancell. The motivation for doing so would have been to further optimize pages based on a display context associated with requesting devices further improving user experience (col 2, lines 28-40).
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 5 above.
Claims 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Peraza in view Vickramaditya Dhawal. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0031574; Published: 02/02/2017)(hereinafter: Dhawal).
Note: Dhawal was cited in the 8/24/2024 IDS.
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose, further comprising a CSS generator to generate a cascading style sheet (CSS) based on changes defined by said edit handler.
Dhawal in the same field of providing a webpage design system discloses this limitation in that [¶ [0034] The term “responsive framework” refers generally to a responsive CSS framework that is used in connection with a responsive webpage. For example, upon a responsive webpage performing a CSS media query to determine which CSS style rules to use based on the display capabilities of the computing device on which the responsive webpage is displayed, the responsive webpage may access the responsive framework to obtain CSS style rules that match the determination]. Mapping CSS rules (features) from the fluid design to generate a CSS stylesheet for a webpage that conforms to the viewport size.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the cascading stylesheet teachings of Baldwin to include a CSS generator to generate a cascading style sheet (CSS) based on changes defined by said edit handler as disclosed by Dhawal. The motivation for doing so would have been to generate a valid cascading stylesheet for the webpage based on rules that match the capabilities of the client device including viewport size in order to guarantee the page will be properly rendered at the client, increasing user engagement and satisfaction.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 7 above.
Claims 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Peraza in view of Wael Al-Sallami (US PG Pat No. 10402064; Published: 9/3/2019; Filed: 1/29/2019)(hereinafter: Al-Sallami).
Note: Al-Sallami was cited on the IDS filed 6/14/21.
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Baldwin and Peraza disclose further comprising an explainer and suggester to provide an explanation to said user for a given action by said edit handler and to offer said user a solution or suggestion for an edit according to a machine learning (ML)/artificial intelligence (AI) engine.
Al-Sallami, in the same field of website editing discloses this limitation in that [[Col. 19 Lines. 15-30] the recommendation module 220 can determine a recommendation for customizing web page editing based on the at least one characteristic… such a recommendation can be associated with one or more features of a web page, including but not limited to, a web page design, a web page layout, a web page component (e.g., widget), web page content, etc…the recommendation module 220 can utilize rules, statistical analyses, machine-trained models, etc. to generate such recommendations. [Col 30. Lines 5-20] the recommendation module 220 can utilize a machine-trained model to assign a relevance score (e.g., based on information associated with the merchant profile) to individual layouts and/or designs in the layout and design database 226. The relevance score can be based on data indicating web page layouts and/or designs for other, similar merchants. That is, the machine-trained model can be trained by a machine-learning mechanism based on data indicating how other, similar merchants have integrated web page layouts and/or designs into their web pages, which can be observed from web page data and/or merchant data]. Thus, layout decisions are performed by a machine-trained model (AI).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the layout design teachings of Baldwin and Dhawal to provide a machine learning model trained to provide machine layout and artificial intelligence to support for layout as disclosed by Al-Sallami. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize previous layout information data to integrate a layout that is associated with performance metrics that has been shown to meet or exceed a threshold [Col 36, lines 31-47].
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected under similar reasons as claim 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 T Baderman can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights