Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 2/10/2025
Claims 1-31 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “The a browser extension” is grammatically incorrect. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-13 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 are described in a single paragraph, with no preamble, no line breaks, and no semi-colons. This creates claims that are difficult to read and scopes that are unclear.
Claim 1 recites “a first sitemap constructed from said first account portal, a web crawler, and a browser extension…”. Based upon the instant specification, it does not seem correct that the first sitemap is constructed from…a web crawler or from…a browser extension, let alone from all three of a first account portal, a web crawler, and a browser extension. This confusion is a result of the above noted lack of line breaks and semi-colons.
Claim 1 recites “said plural sitemaps comprising a first sitemap constructed from said first account portal…”. It is unclear whether each sitemap must comprise a first sitemap, or whether there is only a single sitemap.
Claim 1 recites “extract said information from said first account portal…”. In the claim there is “information about user accounts and corresponding permissions thereof”. It is unclear whether “said information” includes information about user accounts and corresponding permissions thereof from both portals or only information about the user accounts and permissions of the corresponding portal. The way the claim is worded, it would seem that both portals contain the same “information about user accounts and corresponding permissions”.
Claim 7 recites “a preview module that is configured to…transmit said table to an external service provider, a sitemap builder…”. It is unclear whether the external service provider is also a sitemap builder, or whether the table is transmitted to both an external service provider and a sitemap builder. Or “a sitemap builder” is meant to be the beginning of another limitation.
Claim 7 recites “said extension” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner will assume this was meant to read “said browser extension”.
Claim 7 recites “…to construct…”. It is unclear whether it is the [browser] extension, the sitemap builder, or the human auditor that is constructing the second sitemap.
Claim 7 recites “…to store…”. It is unclear whether it is the [browser] extension, the sitemap builder, or the human auditor that stores the sitemap.
Claim 7 recites “said sitemap” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear to which sitemap this is referring.
Claim 8 recites “said account portals” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner will assume this was meant to read “said first and second account portals”.
Claim 8 recites “said first site map” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner will assume this was meant to read “said first sitemap”.
Claim 8 recites “to determine that said first site map is present”. It is unclear as to where this check is occurring. In other words, where is said first site map present when this is determined?
Claim 8 recites “to determine that said first site map is present”. It is unclear as to what is performing this check. In other words, what determines that said first site map is present?
Claim 8 recites “to cause a web crawler to use…”. It is unclear what is performing this step. Is it the browser extension or something else?
Claim 8 recites “extract said information from said first account portal…”. In the claim there is “information about user accounts and corresponding permissions thereof”. It is unclear whether “said information” includes information about user accounts and corresponding permissions thereof from both portals or only information about the user accounts and permissions of the corresponding portal. The way the claim is worded, it would seem that both portals contain the same “information about user accounts and corresponding permissions”.
Claim 13 recites “a computing syste” which the examiner believes should read “a computing system”.
Claim 13 recites “said account portals” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner will assume this was meant to read “said first and second account portals”.
Claim 13 recites “said first site map” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner will assume this was meant to read “said first sitemap”.
Claim 13 recites ““to determine that said first site map is present”. It is unclear as to where this check is occurring. In other words, where is said first site map present when this is determined?
Claim 13 recites “to determine that said first site map is present”. It is unclear what is performing this step. Is it the browser extension or something else?
Claim 13 recites “to cause a web crawler to use…”. It is unclear what is performing this step. Is it the browser extension or something else?
Claim 13 recites “extract said information from said first account portal…”. In the claim there is “information about user accounts and corresponding permissions thereof”. It is unclear whether “said information” includes information about user accounts and corresponding permissions thereof from both portals or only information about the user accounts and permissions of the corresponding portal. The way the claim is worded, it would seem that both portals contain the same “information about user accounts and corresponding permissions”.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-13 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2009/0138794 taught obtaining a site map and once the site map structure is obtained, a site map tree view is created based on the site map structure at step 1224. The tree view may or may not leverage third-party control for the display of the expandable/collapsible view of the site map directory structure. After the tree view is created, the user/group site permissions can be loaded from the database and applied to the view at step 1226. For example, if page or folder access is restricted for the user, this can be denoted with a checkmark next to the file or folder. At this point, the site map build process is complete at step 1228, and the site map can be presented to the user. They did not teach or suggest that the first site map is constructed from a first account portal, a web crawler and a browser extension.
US 2012/0102541 taught that in order to output a complete sitemap, the crawler 211 generates and sends requests to capture different scenarios in the operation of the web application. In one embodiment, the crawler 211 generates requests on behalf of different user types, e.g., administrator, guest, etc., as each user type is set with different permissions for accessing a web site. The crawler 211 may be provided with username and password values to generate such requests. The crawler 211 also simulates different types of clients, (e.g., mobile user, a standard web browser, and so on) under different operational conditions by setting a "user-agent" header value in a simulated HTTP transaction accordingly. It should be appreciated that for different client types, different application resources may be accessible. They did not teach or suggest that the first site map is constructed from a first account portal, a web crawler and a browser extension.
US 2019/0080306 taught in embodiments, the user permissions page 1000 allows a system administrator to manage user accounts on the portal 406 and permissions that together, may facilitate third-party support organizations to view information and remotely access (for the purpose of troubleshooting) only client establishments for which they are a source of support. For example, support staff at a reseller may be a first support contact for clients they sell a POS system to, including this monitoring system. In embodiments, system administrators may create user accounts on the portal 406 that grant access to this information by support staff employed by the reseller or by a client's own support staff (e.g., a company's IT department). They did not teach or suggest that a first site map is constructed from a first account portal, a web crawler and a browser extension.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights