DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on September 30, 2024.
The preliminary amendments filed on January 09, 2025, February 05, 2025, March 10, 2025 and April 28, 2025 have been acknowledged and considered.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11-18, 20 and 22 have been amended. Claims 3, 10 and 19 have been canceled. Claim 23 has been newly added.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-18 and 20-23 are pending and presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner Notes
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of prior-filed application No. 17/792,481 (the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/US2021/013752, filed January 15, 2021), now U.S. Patent No. 12,135,759, and, through that application, of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/962,174, filed January 16, 2020, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The effective filing date of claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-18 and 20-23 is January 16, 2020.
The specific reference to the prior-filed application in the first sentence of the specification (¶[0001]) is objected to under 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211.02(a) because application No. 17/792,481 has issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,135,759 and the specific reference does not so state. Applicant is required to amend the specific reference, by an amendment to the specification or by a corrected Application Data Sheet under 37 CFR 1.76(c), to recite “…a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/792,481, …, now U.S. Patent No. 12,135,759, which is a 371 National Stage filing of PCT/US2021/013752…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements dated September 30, 2024 and September 04, 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 349 (FIG. 3F); 333 (FIG. 3G); 372 (FIG. 3O); 374 (FIG. 3P); 385 (FIG. 3U); 400 (FIG. 4); 511 (FIG. 5); and 610 (FIG. 6).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) and 1.84(p)(3) because the screen captures of FIGS. 3A-3U are reproduced as halftone stippling in which the on-screen text is not legible. For example, the server names and IP addresses listed in FIG. 3B, the host, username and password values of the server configuration in FIG. 3D, and the captions of UI controls 354-357 in FIG. 3H cannot be read. All lines, numbers and letters must be sufficiently dense and dark and uniformly thick and well-defined, and numbers and letters must measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶[0006] states that the application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. The drawings of record are black and white and no color drawing has been accepted under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2); the statement should be deleted.
¶[0017]: “CDS/CA” should read -- CDS/CDA --.
¶[0018]: “A CMS Deployment System “CDS”)” lacks the opening parenthesis and should read -- A CMS Deployment System (“CDS”) --.
¶[0019]: block 206 of FIG. 2 is “Automatically deploy exported website as target website on remote server,” but the description states “in block 206, the CDA exports the website to its target location”; “exports” should read -- deploys --.
¶[0021]: “Figures 3A-3R” is inconsistent with ¶[0009] and the drawings, which include FIGS. 3A-3U.
¶[0022]: “a indicator” should read -- an indicator --.
¶[0028]: the “Save” UI control of FIG. 3F is labeled 349 in the drawing, not 346 (346 designates the “Create Website” UI control of FIG. 3E), and the display screen of FIG. 3G is labeled 333, not 347 (347 designates the list of websites of FIG. 3E). The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
¶[0032]: the dialog control of FIG. 3O is labeled 372, not 371 (371 designates the “Export” UI control of FIG. 3N).
¶[0038]: “described that far” should read -- described thus far --.
¶[0042]: “to be used facilitate” should read -- to be used to facilitate --.
¶[0046]: “the components of the 510” should read -- the components of the CDS/CDA 510 --.
¶[0047]: reference character 514 is used for both the user interfaces and the deployment facilities, and the install, export and deployment facilities are numbered 512, 513 and 514, whereas FIG. 5 labels them 511 (Install Facility), 512 (Export Facility) and 513 (Deployment Facility); in addition, “Other and /or” should read -- Other and/or --.
¶[0048]: “running on the CPU 103” should read -- running on the CPU 503 --.
¶[0051]: “data repositories 516 and 517” should read -- data repositories 515 and 516 --; 517 designates the CDS API in FIG. 5.
¶[0052]: “techniques of described herein” should read -- techniques described herein --, and “an CDS/CDA” should read -- a CDS/CDA --.
¶[0055]: “the CDS/CDA create one or more corresponding records” should read -- the CDS/CDA creates one or more corresponding records --.
¶[0057]: “performs a least one” should read -- performs at least one --, and “Figure 3H and 3N” should read -- Figures 3H and 3N --.
¶[0066]: “merges the stages version” should read -- merges the staged version --; “optimizes to only transfers changed files” should read -- optimizes to only transfer changed files --; and “has been successful deployed” should read -- has been successfully deployed --.
The use of the terms Drupal, Joomla, Expression Engine and MySQL (¶[0041]), Laravel, Redis, Webpack and Git (¶[0049]), and phantomJS and Headless Chrome (¶[0061]), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-18 and 20-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 21-22 use “web site”, replace it to – “website” -- . Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1 wherein…”. Please add a comma “,” after “1”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 recites “one or more of assets data, and/or files”. Please replace it with -- one or more of assets, data, and/or files --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 recites “…a content management software system that is based upon PHP and/or MYSQ, or at least…”. Please replace “MYSQ” to – “MYSQL” -- . Claim 12 recites “by automatically, without user intervention. retargeting”. Please replace the period after “intervention” with a comma. Claim 12 also recites that the deployment component is configured “to: automatically configure …; causing the installed CM system instance to be invoked …; export …; and automatically deploy …”. “causing” should read -- cause -- to agree with the other recited functions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “The computer system of claim 12 wherein…”. Please add a comma “,” after “12”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 18 also recites “WORDPRESS, DRUPAL. JOOMLA!. and/or EXPRESSIONENGINE”; the periods after “DRUPAL” and “JOOMLA!” should be replaced with commas.
Claim 20 recites “The method of claim 11 wherein…”. Please add a comma “,” after “11”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites “The computer system of claim 12 wherein…”. Please add a comma “,” after “12”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 22 recites “A non-transitory computing-readable memory medium…”. Please replace “computing-readable” to – “computer-readable” -- . Claim 22 also recites “by automatically. without user intervention. retargeting”; the periods should be replaced with commas. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11 and 20 are objected to as depending from objected claim 1; claims 13-18 and 21 are objected to as depending from objected claim 12; and claim 23 is objected to as depending from objected claim 22.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-18 and 20-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,759. The patent and the instant application are commonly owned by Southend Technologies. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the instant independent claims are broadened variants of the patented claims (e.g., instant claim 1 omits the patented "associating the target website with a server name and a network resource identifier," the front/back-end user-interface distinction, and the first/second single-UI-control triggers). Omitting elements while retaining the remaining elements’ functions does not render the broadened claim patentably distinct; the narrower patented claim renders the broader instant claim obvious.
Instant Application 18/901,684
U.S. Patent No. 12,135,759
1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating automated creation and deployment of a website configured for public access, comprising: automatically configuring a remote server for hosting a target website; automatically configuring the target web site on behalf of a user by: installing an instance of a content management software (“CMS”) system locally in a computer system that is distinct from the remote server, the CMS system configured to provide resources, a user interface for viewing content stored in the CMS system, and a user interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering the content stored in the CMS system; and associating the installed CMS system instance with the target website; causing the installed CMS system instance to be invoked to create, modify, and/or administer the content for the installed CMS system instance; in response to receiving an indication of selection of a first single user interface control, exporting the entire installed CMS system instance to produce an exported version of the installed CMS system instance, the exported version configured as a flat html content to enable the content stored in the installed CMS system instance to be presented on a remote server distinct from the installed CMS system instance, wherein references and resources are automatically retargeted to a location of the remote server without user intervention; and automatically deploying the exported version as the target website on the remote server, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content independent of the CMS system.
1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating automated creation and deployment of a website configured for public access, comprising: automatically configuring a remote server for hosting a target website; associating the target website with a server name and a network resource identifier of the configured remote server; in response to an indication of selection of a user interface control, automatically configuring the target website on behalf of a user by: installing an instance of a content management software (“CMS”) system locally in a computer system that is distinct from the remote server, the CMS system configured to provide resources, a front end user interface for viewing content stored in the CMS system, and a back-end user interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering the content stored in the CMS system; and associating the installed CMS system instance with the target website; in response to receiving indication of a selection of the back-end user interface or the front-end user interface, invoking the installed CMS system instance to create, modify, and/or administer the content for the installed CMS system instance; in response to selection of a first single user interface control, exporting the entire installed CMS system instance to produce an exported version of the installed CMS system instance, the exported version configured as a flat html content to enable the content stored in the installed CMS system instance to be presented on a remote server distinct from the installed CMS system instance, wherein references and resources are automatically retargeted to a location of the remote server without user intervention; and in response to indication of selection of a second single user interface control, automatically deploying the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content independent of the installed CMS system.
2, 4-9
2, 4-9
11
10, 11
12. A computer system comprising: a computer processor; a memory; and a website deployment component, comprising a content management system access tool, an export facility, and a deployment facility that are stored in the memory and configured, when executed by the computer processor, to: automatically configure a target website on behalf of a user using the content management system access tool by: installing an instance of a content management (“CM”) system locally on the computer system, the computer system distinct from the remote server, the CM system configured to provide resources, a user interface for viewing content stored in the CM system, and a user interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering the content stored in the CM system; and associating the installed CM system instance with the target website; causing the installed CM system instance to be invoked to create, modify, and/or administer content for the installed CM system instance; export the installed CM system instance to provide flat html content as an export version using the export facility, the export version structured to execute, independent of the CM system, on a remote server by automatically, without user intervention. retargeting references and resources to a location of the remote server; and automatically deploy the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server using the deployment facility, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content without executing any resources or code of the CM system.
12. A computer system comprising: a computer processor; a memory; and a website deployment component, comprising a content management system access tool, an export facility, and a deployment facility that are stored in the memory and configured, when executed by the computer processor, to upon an indication of selection of a single user interface control of the deployment component, automatically configure a target website on behalf of a user using the content management system access tool by: installing an instance of a content management (“CM”) system locally on the computer system that is distinct from the remote server, the CM system configured to provide resources, a front-end user interface for viewing content stored in the CM system, and a back-end user interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering the content stored in the CM system; and associating the installed CM system instance with the target website; upon an indication of selection of the back-end user interface or the front-end user interface of the installed CM system instance, invoke the installed CM system instance to create, modify, and/or administer the content for the installed CM system instance; export the installed CM system instance to provide flat html content as an export version using the export facility, the export version structured to execute, independent of the CM system, on a remote server by automatically, without user intervention, retargeting references and resources to a location of the remote server; and upon indication of selection of a single user interface control of the deployment component, automatically deploy the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server using the deployment facility, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content without executing any resources or code of the CM system.
13-17
13-17
18
18, 19
20
20
21
21
22. A non-transitory computing-readable memory medium storing instructions for controlling a computer processor, when executed, to facilitate automated creation and deployment of a website configured for public access by performing a method comprising: automatically configuring a remote server for hosting a target website; automatically configuring the target web site on behalf of a user by: installing an instance of a content management software (“CMS”) system locally in a computer system that is distinct from the remote server, the CMS system configured to provide resources, and an interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering content stored in the CMS system; and associating the installed CMS system instance with the target website; causing the installed CMS system instance to be invoked to create, modify, and/or administer the content for the installed CMS system instance; exporting the installed CMS system instance to produce an exported version of the installed CMS system instance, the exported version configured as a flat html content to enable the content stored in the CMS system instance to be executed and presented remotely from the installed CMS system instance by automatically. without user intervention. retargeting references and resources to a location of the remote server; and in response to indication of a single user interface control selection, automatically deploying the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content independent of the installed CMS system.
22. A non-transitory computing-readable memory medium storing instructions for controlling a computer processor, when executed, to facilitate automated creation and deployment of a website configured for public access by performing a method comprising: automatically configuring a remote server for hosting a target website; associating the target website with a server name and a network resource identifier of the configured remote server; in response to an indication of selection of a user interface control, automatically configuring the target website on behalf of a user by: installing an instance of a content management software (“CMS”) system locally in a computer system that is distinct from the remote server, the CMS system configured to provide resources, a front-end user interface for viewing content stored in the CMS system, and a back-end user interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering the content stored in the CMS system; and associating the installed CMS system instance with the target website; in response to receiving indication of a selection of the back-end user interface or the front-end user interface, invoking the installed CMS system instance to create, modify, and/or administer the content for the installed CMS system instance; exporting the installed CMS system instance to produce an exported version of the installed CMS system instance, the exported version configured as a flat html content to enable the content stored in the installed CMS system instance to be executed and presented remotely from the installed CMS system instance by automatically without user intervention, retargeting references and resources to a location of the mote server; and in response to indication of a single user interface control selection, automatically deploying the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content independent of the installed CMS system.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,759 in view of WP2Static / WP Static HTML Output (Exhibit B), hereinafter WP2Static.
Claim 22 of the patent recites every limitation of instant claim 22, from which claim 23 depends; the patented claim is narrower, additionally reciting the association of the target website with a server name and a network resource identifier, the front-end and back-end user interfaces, and the user-interface-selection triggers. Claim 22 of the patent does not claim automatically retargeting references and resources to the location of the remote server by automatically scraping the CMS system instance to provide an initial html content; automatically reviewing the initial html content to detect missing resources, files, and/or pages; and automatically causing download of any detected missing content to supplement the initial html content to produce the exported version.
WP2Static teaches these limitations. Its crawler scrapes each page of the WordPress site to produce the initial HTML (Ex. B, src/SiteCrawler.php, ll. 62, 89, 226), "generating a self-contained static website, with URLs and other post-processing filters applied" (readme.txt, l. 13); it reviews each element of the crawled page for its URL (src/URLRewriter.php, processElementURL(), ll. 30-41; rewriteLocalURL(), l. 63) and passes discovered assets to the asset downloader (l. 123), which skips any asset already obtained by the crawl ("skip if in Crawl Cache already," src/AssetDownloader.php, ll. 31-35) and downloads the remaining ones into the exported site (ll. 45-47, 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the retargeting of claim 22 of the patent by WP2Static’s crawl, review and asset-download steps, because WP2Static applies those steps to produce a "self-contained static website" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 13) whose referenced resources are all present when it is served away from the CMS. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-18 and 20-21 are 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 1 recites “automatically configuring a remote server for hosting a target website” and later recites “to be presented on a remote server distinct from the installed CMS system instance, wherein references and resources are automatically retargeted to a location of the remote server.” The second recitation of “a remote server” introduces a remote server anew, so it is unclear whether the claim requires one remote server or two, and to which of them each later recitation of “the remote server” (the retargeting location and the server on which the exported version is deployed) refers. For purposes of examination, the two recitations are interpreted as the same remote server, namely the remote server configured for hosting the target website.
Claims 7, 17 and 18 contain the trademarks/trade names WORDPRESS, DRUPAL, JOOMLA! and EXPRESSIONENGINE (claims 7 and 18), MYSQ[L] (claim 7), and LINUX and WINDOWS (claim 17). 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). 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 trademarks/trade names are used to identify/describe content management software, database software and operating systems and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For purposes of examination, each term is interpreted as the generic content management software, database software or operating system sold under that mark.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “installing an instance of a content management ("CM") system locally on the computer system, the computer system distinct from the remote server,” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the remote server” in this limitation, which precedes the introduction of “a remote server” later in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the remote server” is interpreted as the remote server on which the export version is structured to execute.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “automatically deploy the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server using the deployment facility, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content without executing any resources or code of the CM system.” in lines 23-25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the exported version” (the claim earlier introduces “an export version,” not an exported version) and for “the entire website” (the claim previously recites only “a target website”). For purposes of examination, “the exported version of the entire website” is interpreted as the export version of the target website.
Claim 21 recites “store the exported version of the CMS system instance in a version control system.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the CMS system instance” in the claim; claim 12, from which claim 21 depends, recites only a “CM system instance.” For purposes of examination, “the CMS system instance” is interpreted as the installed CM system instance of claim 12.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11 and 20 are rejected as depending, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and failing to cure its indefiniteness, and claims 13-18 and 21 are rejected as depending, directly or indirectly, from claim 12 and failing to cure its indefiniteness.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simply Static (Exhibit A), hereinafter Simply Static in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art, hereinafter AAPA and further in view of WP2Static / WP Static HTML Output (Exhibit B), hereinafter WP2Static.
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Simply Static teaches a computer-implemented method for facilitating automated creation and deployment of a website configured for public access, comprising: (Simply Static is computer-implemented WordPress software that generates and publishes a public static website from a CMS — it "generates static (HTML) copies of your WordPress pages" (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 60) for serving publicly (l. 90).) automatically configuring the target web site on behalf of a user by: (Simply Static automatically configures the target static website for the user from its settings — generating the static copy and retargeting its URLs to the chosen host without manual editing — as it "generates static (HTML) copies of your WordPress pages" (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 60) and will "replace the URLs to match where you'll be hosting it" (l. 24) per the General Settings "Destination URLs" configuration (l. 99).) [[installing an instance of a content management software ("CMS") system locally in a computer system]] that is distinct from the remote server[[, the CMS system configured to provide resources, a user interface for viewing content stored in the CMS system, and a user interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering the content stored in the CMS system; and]] (Simply Static keeps the WordPress installation separate from the public host — "Your WordPress installation lives on one server and your static site is served on a different server" (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 90) — and lets the user "keep WordPress in a secure location that no one can access but you" (l. 14).) associating the installed CMS system instance with the target website (the installed instance is associated with the destination via the Destination URLs configuration — Simply Static will "replace the URLs to match where you’ll be hosting it" (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 24; General Settings "Destination URLs," l. 99).) [[in response to receiving an indication of selection of a first single user interface control,]] exporting the entire installed CMS system instance to produce an exported version of the installed CMS system instance, the exported version configured as a flat html content to enable the content stored in the installed CMS system instance to be presented on a remote server distinct from the installed CMS system instance, wherein references and resources are automatically retargeted to a location of the remote server without user intervention (Simply Static "generates static (HTML) copies of your WordPress pages" and "includes any images, CSS & JS files" (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 60), copying "an *entire* site" (l. 70); it "automatically replace[s] the URLs for the WordPress installation with … absolute URLs, at a domain of your choice" (l. 62), retargeting references and resources to the remote-server location without user intervention (class-ss-url-extractor.php, extract_and_update_urls(), l. 154; replace_urls(), l. 190).)
Simply Static is silent to disclose installing the CMS instance locally with its provision of resources and content-viewing/administration interfaces, and causing that instance to be invoked to author content; however, AAPA teaches:
installing an instance of a content management software ("CMS") system locally in a computer system [[that is distinct from the remote server]], the CMS system configured to provide resources, a user interface for viewing content stored in the CMS system, and a user interface for creating, modifying, and/or administering the content stored in the CMS system (Applicant admits installing a CMS instance locally — WORDPRESS is used "when one hosts one’s own website (on your own server)" and "it’s easy to install, setup, configure and customize" (Spec [0003]); admits it provides resources — "a large number of resources available, from plugins, to templates, tutorials" (Spec [0003]); admits the content-administration interface — "allows external people to write content and allows the website administrator to assign them different roles (editors, contributors, etc.)" (Spec [0003]); and admits the content-viewing function — "enables lay users to create websites with sophisticated textual and graphical content" (Spec [0003]).)
causing the installed CMS system instance to be invoked to create, modify, and/or administer the content for the installed CMS system instance (the admitted CMS is invoked to author and administer content — it "allows external people to write content" through assigned editorial roles (Spec [0003]) — and that content is what is subsequently exported by Simply Static.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Simply Static’s automated export of a locally-installed WORDPRESS CMS to retargeted flat HTML to the WORDPRESS CMS installation that AAPA admits, because AAPA identifies the very problems Simply Static solves — the deployed CMS site is "quite resource consuming … leading to severe latency, poor performance" (Spec. [0004]) and suffers "lack of security … prone to hacking" (Spec [0005]) — whereas Simply Static yields a site that is "really, _really_ fast" and "nothing for hackers to hack" (Ex. A, readme.txt, ll. 14, 90), with a reasonable expectation of success because Simply Static operates on exactly such a WORDPRESS installation.
Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose automatically configuring the remote server, the single-control export trigger, and the automatic deployment of the exported version to the remote server; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches:
automatically configuring a remote server for hosting a target website (WP2Static "allows you to deploy the generated static site to a staging or production environment" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 15) and configures the deployment host — e.g., "Any FTP server" (l. 114), the user selecting a deployment method and configuring its options ("How do I configure all the options?" l. 106; "There's some useful information on the page once you select a deployment method," l. 108), which the plugin stores as its deployment settings (src/Options.php, "currentDeploymentMethod," l. 24; "ghRepo," "ghBranch," "ghPath," ll. 106-109).)
in response to receiving an indication of selection of a first single user interface control (WP2Static provides "1-click generation and exporting to an FTP server" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 522); "after hitting the publish button, the plugin will output … your entire site" (l. 58).)
automatically deploying the exported version as the target website on the remote server, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content independent of the CMS system (WP2Static performs "auto-deploy to a folder … FTP server, S3, GitHub" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 31); the deployed site is a "standalone, static html copy of your whole WordPress website" that "removes tell-tale signs your site is running WordPress" (ll. 29–30), presenting the flat HTML independent of the CMS.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate WP2Static’s single-control automatic deployment of the generated static site to a configured remote server into the Simply Static/AAPA combination, in order to publish the secure, lightweight static copy to the public production host automatically rather than by manual upload — the express purpose of WP2Static (Ex. B, readme.txt, ll. 15, 522). The combination unites known prior-art elements according to their established functions to yield the predictable result of one-action export-and-deploy of a CMS-authored site as a public static website. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Simply Static, AAPA, and WP2Static are analogous art, all directed to creating, securing, and serving a WORDPRESS CMS site as static HTML for lightweight public hosting.
With respect to claim 2 (Original), Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches wherein the exporting the installed CMS system instance to produce the exported version of the CMS system instance further comprises: without user intervention, using a software content retrieval tool, automatically scraping the CMS system instance to provide an initial html content (WP2Static’s retrieval tool is a cURL-based crawler (src/SiteCrawler.php, $this->ch = curl_init(), l. 62; crawl(), l. 89) that scrapes each page to produce the initial HTML (processCrawledURL(), l. 226), "detect[ing] and crawl[ing] all HTML, CSS, JS, images and other resources" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 13).) automatically reviewing the initial html content to detect missing resources, files, and/or pages (WP2Static reviews the crawled content for referenced assets it must additionally obtain — src/AssetDownloader.php is documented to "Download discovered assets" (l. 19); src/ImgSrcSetProcessor.php detects responsive-image assets from "srcset" attributes (processImageSrcSet(), l. 25) and src/CSSProcessor.php detects stylesheet-referenced assets (processCSS(), l. 19); and each URL found in an element of the crawled page is extracted (src/URLRewriter.php, processElementURL(), ll. 30-41) and passed to the asset downloader (l. 123), which skips any asset already obtained by the crawl — "skip if in Crawl Cache already" (src/AssetDownloader.php, ll. 31-35) — so that only content missing from the initial crawl is detected for retrieval.) and automatically causing download of any detected missing content to supplement the initial html content to produce the exported version (Each detected asset is downloaded and written into the export (src/AssetDownloader.php, downloadAsset(), l. 23, saving into the exported site directory, ll. 45-47, via file_put_contents, l. 96; src/URLRewriter.php, l. 123), supplementing the initial crawl to produce the complete static export.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect and download the missing referenced resources of the Simply Static/AAPA site using WP2Static’s crawler and asset downloader, in order to produce a "self-contained static website" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 13) that renders correctly when served independently of the CMS, with a reasonable expectation of success. With respect to claim 4 (Currently Amended), Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches wherein the software content retrieval tool is a command line tool configured to retrieve, crawl, and/or download content for offline viewing (WP2Static’s crawler is operated from the command line through its WP-CLI integration ("New feature: WP CLI integration," Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 259): the crawl action of its wordpress_site command "Crawls site, creating or updating the static site" (src/CLI.php, ll. 286-288, 340-345), and the generated copy is configurable for offline use (src/Options.php, "allowOfflineUsage," l. 12; readme.txt, l. 323, "offline copy").)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to run the content retrieval of the Simply Static/AAPA combination from the command line, as WP2Static does with its WP-CLI crawl command (Ex. B, src/CLI.php, ll. 286-288), so that the static copy can be generated by a scripted or unattended job rather than only from the browser interface. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. With respect to claim 5 (Currently Amended), Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches wherein the missing content includes one or more of assets data, and/or files dynamically downloaded by the CMS system instance through scripts, stylesheets, or dynamically executed code (WORDPRESS loads assets through enqueued scripts and stylesheets, and WP2Static detects and downloads exactly such stylesheet-referenced assets — stylesheet-referenced assets via src/CSSProcessor.php (processCSS(), l. 19) and markup-referenced image assets via src/ImgSrcSetProcessor.php (l. 25), each downloaded by src/AssetDownloader.php (l. 23). The claim recites the manner of dynamic download in the alternative and the prior art need teach only one alternative.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to capture the stylesheet-loaded assets of the Simply Static/AAPA site using WP2Static’s asset detection and download, in order that the static copy renders completely when served off the CMS, with predictable results. With respect to claim 6 (Currently Amended), Simply Static teaches resolving links to refer to location of the remote server (Simply Static "automatically replace[s] the URLs … to match where you’ll be hosting it" (Ex. A, readme.txt, ll. 24, 62), implemented at class-ss-url-extractor.php, replace_urls() (l. 190).) With respect to claim 7 (Currently Amended), Simply Static teaches wherein the CMS system instance is a WORDPRESS software instance, a content management software system that is based upon PHP and/or MYSQ, or at least one of DRUPAL, JOOMLA!, and/or EXPRESSIONENGINE software (Simply Static operates upon a WORDPRESS instance (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 14). The claim recites the CMS system instance in the alternative and the prior art need teach only one alternative.)
With respect to claim 9 (Currently Amended), Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches wherein the remote server is configured as an ftp server (WP2Static deploys the static site to "Any FTP server" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 114) via "1-click generation and exporting to an FTP server" (l. 522).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the remote server of the Simply Static/AAPA combination as an FTP server, as WP2Static teaches, because WP2Static names "Any FTP server" as a destination to which the generated static site may be published (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 114), allowing the static site to be hosted on ordinary FTP-accessible web hosting. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. With respect to claim 11 (Currently Amended), Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches wherein the exported version of the CMS system instance is stored in a version control system (as WP2Static deploys the export to "GitHub/GitLab/BitBucket Pages" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 115), committing the export to a repository branch (src/Options.php, "ghBranch" and "ghCommitMessage," ll. 106–107) — i.e., stored in a git version control system.), and further comprising: using the version control system to automatically deploy an approved version of the exported version as the target website on the remote server (the committed version is served by GitHub Pages as the public target website ("auto-deploy to … GitHub," Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 31). The claim recites the use of the version control system in the alternative and the prior art need teach only one alternative.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store and deploy the Simply Static/AAPA export through WP2Static’s git/GitHub version control, in order to host the static site (which is "free on GitHub Pages," Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 40) and retain its versions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 12 (Currently Amended), claim 12 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1, the corresponding limitations being met by the same teachings (Simply Static: the CM system distinct from the remote server, associating the installed instance with the target website, and export of the entire instance to flat HTML with references and resources retargeted to the remote server without user intervention; AAPA: installing the CM system locally with resources and viewing/authoring interfaces, and causing it to be invoked to create/modify content; WP2Static: automatically deploying to the remote server). Claim 12 differs in reciting the following limitations, which are additionally taught:
Simply Static teaches a computer processor; a memory (Simply Static runs within the WordPress installation, which "lives on one server" (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 90); a server executing WordPress and the plugin necessarily comprises a computer processor and a memory.)
Simply Static teaches a website deployment component, comprising a content management system access tool, an export facility, [[and a deployment facility]] that are stored in the memory and configured, when executed by the computer processor (the content management system access tool corresponds to the plugin’s operation upon the locally-installed WORDPRESS (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 14); the export facility corresponds to the crawl-and-generate-flat-HTML logic with URL retargeting (Ex. A, class-ss-url-fetcher.php, l. 68; class-ss-url-extractor.php, ll. 154, 190.)
Simply Static teaches automatically configure a target website on behalf of a user using the content management system access tool by: (the plugin, operating within the locally installed WordPress (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 14), automatically configures the target static website for the user from its settings, generating the static copy and replacing its URLs "to match where you’ll be hosting it" (l. 24) per the General Settings "Destination URLs" option (l. 99); the installing and associating sub-steps are met for the same reasons set forth for claim 1.)
Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose [[and a deployment facility]] and the deployed target website presenting the flat html content without executing any resources or code of the CM system; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches:
[[and a deployment facility]] (WP2Static’s deployment function publishes the generated static site to the configured destination: it "allows you to deploy the generated static site to a staging or production environment" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 15) and will "auto-deploy to a folder on your server, a ZIP file, FTP server, S3, GitHub, Netlif, BunnyCDN, BitBucket or GitLab" (l. 31).)
the deployed target website presenting the flat html content without executing any resources or code of the CM system (the deployed site is a "standalone, static html copy" that "removes tell-tale signs your site is running WordPress" (Ex. B, readme.txt, ll. 29–30), i.e., flat HTML served without WordPress code.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Simply Static/AAPA system with WP2Static’s deployment facility, so that the exported flat HTML is published to the remote server and served there without any WordPress code, because the deployed copy "removes tell-tale signs your site is running WordPress, making it unattractive to hackers" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 30). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
With respect to claim 13 (Currently Amended), claim 13 recites limitations similar to claim 2 (a software content retrieval tool that, without user intervention, automatically scrapes the CM system instance to retrieve an initial html content; automatically reviews the initial html content to detect missing resources, files, and/or pages; and automatically causes retrieval of any detected missing content to supplement the initial html content to produce the exported version) and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 2 (Ex. B, src/SiteCrawler.php, ll. 62, 89, 226; src/AssetDownloader.php, ll. 19, 23, 96; src/ImgSrcSetProcessor.php, l. 25; src/CSSProcessor.php, l. 19; src/URLRewriter.php, ll. 30-41, 123; src/AssetDownloader.php, ll. 31-35, 45-47).
With respect to claim 16 (Currently Amended), claim 16 recites limitations similar to claim 5 (the missing content includes one or more of assets, data, and/or files dynamically downloaded by the CM system) and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 5 (Ex. B, src/CSSProcessor.php, l. 19; src/ImgSrcSetProcessor.php, l. 25; src/AssetDownloader.php, l. 23). With respect to claim 17 (Currently Amended), claim 17 recites limitations similar to claim 4 (the software content retrieval tool is a command line tool configured to retrieve, crawl, and/or download content for offline viewing) and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 4 (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 259; src/CLI.php, ll. 286-288). Claim 17 recites the operating-system limitation in the alternative (“and/or”) and the prior art need teach only one alternative. With respect to claim 18 (Currently Amended), claim 18 recites limitations similar to claim 7 (the CM system is a content management software system constructed using at least one of: WORDPRESS, DRUPAL, JOOMLA!, and/or EXPRESSIONENGINE software) and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 7; the recitation is in the alternative and WORDPRESS satisfies it (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 14).
With respect to claim 21 (Original), claim 21 recites limitations similar to claim 11 (the export facility further configured to store the exported version in a version control system and use the version control system to automatically deploy an approved version of the exported version as the target website on the remote server, and/or to automatically roll back the target website to a prior exported version) and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 11 (Ex. B, readme.txt, ll. 31, 115; src/Options.php, ll. 106–107). With respect to claim 22 (Currently Amended), claim 22 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1, the corresponding limitations being met by the same teachings. Claim 22 differs in reciting:
Simply Static teaches a non-transitory computing-readable memory medium storing instructions for controlling a computer processor, when executed, to facilitate automated creation and deployment of a website configured for public access by performing a method comprising (Simply Static is plugin software installed by uploading "the entire `simply-static` folder to the `/wp-content/plugins/` directory" (Ex. A, readme.txt, l. 53); its instructions are thus stored on the non-transitory storage of the WordPress server for execution by that server’s processor.)
Simply Static in view of AAPA is silent to disclose in response to indication of a single user interface control selection, automatically deploying the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content independent of the installed CMS system; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static teaches in response to indication of a single user interface control selection, automatically deploying the exported version of the entire website as the target website on the remote server, the deployed target website presenting the flat html content independent of the installed CMS system (WP2Static provides "1-click generation and exporting" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 522) that auto-deploys the standalone static copy to the remote server, running independent of WordPress (ll. 29–31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trigger the deployment of the Simply Static/AAPA export by a single user interface control selection, as WP2Static does with its "1-click generation and exporting to an FTP server" (Ex. B, readme.txt, l. 522), so that the static site is published to the remote server in one action rather than by manual upload. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. With respect to claim 23 (New), claim 23 recites limitations similar to claim 2 (automatically retargeting references and resources to the location of the remote server by automatically scraping the CMS system instance to provide an initial html content; automatically reviewing the initial html content to detect missing resources, files, and/or pages; and automatically causing download of any detected missing content to supplement the initial html content to produce the exported version) and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 2 (Ex. B, src/SiteCrawler.php, ll. 89, 226; src/AssetDownloader.php, ll. 19, 23; src/ImgSrcSetProcessor.php, l. 25; src/CSSProcessor.php, l. 19; src/URLRewriter.php, ll. 30-41, 123; src/AssetDownloader.php, ll. 31-35, 45-47).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simply Static (Exhibit A) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and WP2Static / WP Static HTML Output (Exhibit B), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of WP2Static / WP Static HTML Output version 6.6.5 (Exhibit C), hereinafter WP2Static 6.6.5.
With respect to claim 8 (Original), Simply Static in view of AAPA and WP2Static is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, WP2Static 6.6.5 teaches wherein the automatically configuring the remote server is performed in response to entry of an associated server name, a protocol designation, a port identifier, and user credentials (WP2Static 6.6.5’s FTP deployment settings form receives an "FTP Server" (Ex. C, views/ftp_settings_block.phtml, ll. 17-20), an "FTP Port" (ll. 25-28), an "FTP Username" and an "FTP Password" (ll. 33-44), and a protocol designation, "Use FTPS (TLS)," selecting FTP or FTP over TLS (ll. 57-60). The entries are stored as the plugin’s FTP deployment settings (plugin/WP2Static/DBSettings.php, ll. 87-95), and when FTP is the selected deployment method (plugin/WP2Static/Deployer.php, ll. 80-95) the FTP deployer automatically configures its connection to the remote server from those entries, connecting with the entered server, the FTP/FTPS selection and the entered port (default 21) and logging in with the entered username and password (plugin/deployers/FTP.php, ll. 55-71); the form also offers "Test FTP Settings" (views/ftp_settings_block.phtml, l. 76).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the remote server of the Simply Static/AAPA/WP2Static combination from an entered server name, protocol designation, port identifier and user credentials, as WP2Static 6.6.5 does, so that the user can "switch to another deployment option, such as FTP or GitHub Pages and deploy to your live site" (Ex. C, readme.txt, l. 69) on any FTP or FTPS host. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
With respect to claim 14 (Currently Amended), claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 8 (a component structured to configure the remote server using an associated server name, a protocol designation, a port identifier, and user credentials) and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 8 (Ex. C, views/ftp_settings_block.phtml, ll. 17-60; plugin/WP2Static/DBSettings.php, ll. 87-95; plugin/deployers/FTP.php, ll. 55-71).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simply Static (Exhibit A) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and WP2Static / WP Static HTML Output (Exhibit B), as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0049697 A1, hereinafter “Nakano”).
With respect to claim 15 (Currently Amended), Simply Static in view of AAPA and WP2Static is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Nakano teaches wherein the website deployment component is structured to accommodate multiple users modifying and/or exporting the CM system instance (Nakano’s website development software module 135, executed on the development server ([0060], [0097]), accommodates many contributors to one website: "every developer contributing to a website does so in a work area," and "Changes made by a contributor in one work area do not affect the website or the work of other contributors in other work areas" ([0069]); the developers’ work is integrated in a staging area that "is accessible to all users along a branch" ([0070]); the approved staging area is published as an edition of the website ([0071], [0074]); and "the development server 130 sends the website to the production webserver 170" ([0061]). The claim recites modifying and exporting in the alternative and the prior art need teach only one alternative.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the website deployment component of the Simply Static/AAPA/WP2Static combination to accommodate multiple users modifying and publishing the site, as Nakano teaches, because "maintaining a website often requires the efforts of tens or hundreds of people" and "it is desirable to have website contributors work in parallel" (Nakano, [0008]). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
With respect to claim 20 (Currently Amended), Simply Static in view of WP2Static and Nakano is silent to disclose; however, AAPA teaches wherein changes to the content stored in the CMS system are provided by a plurality of users at the same or different times (Applicant admits that the CMS "allows external people to write content and allows the website administrator to assign them different roles (editors, contributors, etc.)" (Spec ¶[0003]), so that the content stored in the CMS is changed by a plurality of users.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Simply Static/WP2Static/Nakano combination to the CMS content of AAPA, which is changed by a plurality of users, because AAPA admits that the CMS "allows external people to write content" in assigned editorial roles (Spec ¶[0003]). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Simply Static in view of AAPA and WP2Static is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Nakano teaches using the version control system to maintain coherence and/or consistency of the content (Nakano’s versioning system records a history object for every file and directory ([0016]-[0017]); when a contributor submits work to the shared staging area, the conflict checking module compares the submitted file’s history with that of the content already in the staging area — "History objects h and h.sub.s are not in conflict if a) h and h.sub.s are the same or b) h derives from h.sub.s or c) h.sub.s derives from h," and otherwise "the submit fails because of the conflict" ([0145]; see also [0146]-[0147] and the file locks of [0162]) — so that the integrated content is free of the problem Nakano identifies, that "conflicting changes may be posted to a website causing the website to be corrupted" ([0008]); the integrated content is then frozen as a read-only edition ([0072], [0074]). Nakano does not use the words "coherence" or "consistency"; keeping the shared website content free of conflicting versions of its files is maintaining the consistency of that content.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the version control system of the Simply Static/AAPA/WP2Static combination to check each user’s changes against the version history before they are integrated, as Nakano teaches, because with many contributors "conflicting changes may be posted to a website causing the website to be corrupted" (Nakano, [0008]). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
