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 office action is in response to communication filed on 8/12/2026. The cited reference Goren in the first non-final office action is not prior art as Applicant correctly pointed out. Accordingly, this office action is the second non-final.
The instant application having application No. 19/544,588 filed on February 19, 2026, presents claims 1-25 for examination, claims priority to provisional application No. 63/760876, filed February 20, 2025.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding objection to spec: Applicant's appropriately amended the spec; the objection is withdrawn.
(B). Regarding objections to claims: Applicant's amendment appropriately addressed the objections to claims 4, 9-10, 18, 22-23, and 25, the objections are withdrawn.
(C). Regarding art rejection: In regard to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; second non-final office action is set forth below.
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.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10, 13-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20230214239 A1, hereinafter “Singh”) in view of Gold et al. (US 20060015857 A1, hereinafter “Gold”).
With respect to claim 1, Singh discloses A method for detecting accessibility issues in a mobile device software application, comprising:
receiving, from a mobile operating system (OS) accessibility framework via a mobile application test automation framework, a hierarchical representation of accessibility-exposed attributes of a selected component of a plurality of components of a mobile application (e.g. para [0048], “… where input data 304 is received. …. For example, if the tree view of FIG. 2B represented a file folder hierarchy of a filesystem, …” wherein the hierarchical file folder reads on a hierarchical representation of accessibility-exposed attributes. Fig. 1 shows the example system analogous to a mobile application test automation framework which comprises a mobile operating system accessibility framework, e.g. Automation Engine 120. Para [0030] discloses that “The UIA device 110 may include or correspond to a desktop computing device, a laptop computing device, a personal computing device, a tablet computing device, a mobile device (e.g., a smart phone, a tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, and the like), …”);
obtaining a current value of the selected component as exposed through the accessibility-exposed attributes, wherein a current value of a component is a current state associated with the selected component (e.g. para [0067], “… The pre-validation data may include image data (e.g., an image depicting the control or other aspects of the state of the UI when the action can be executed on the target control, text data (e.g., a label associated with the control), or other information. …”);
performing at least one automated interaction with the selected component using the mobile application test automation framework, wherein an automated interaction is configured to simulate a user interaction (e.g. para [0069], “… The move to target logic 410 may be configured to generate instructions for moving an action initiating element (e.g., a cursor of a mouse, etc.) to the target control. In an aspect, the action initiating element may be moved to the location defined by CPx, CPy. …” also see para [0071]);
obtaining an updated value of the selected component after performing the at least one automated interaction (e.g. para [0071], “… For example, the validation logic 416 may be configured to use the RCNN model to determine whether the state of the UI matches the state of the UI indicated in the image data, text data, or other types of information included in the post-validation data. …” wherein determining the state of the UI indicates obtaining an updated value); and
validating whether the updated value of the selected component reflects an expected change [relative to the current value of the selected component], wherein a failure to reflect the expected change indicates an accessibility issue associated with the selected component (e.g. para [0071], “… If the validation logic 416 determines that the action was executed successfully, …” also see para [0072]).
Singh does not appear to explicitly disclose
(validating whether the updated value of the selected component reflects an expected change) relative to the current value of the selected component, (wherein a failure to reflect the expected change indicates an accessibility issue associated with the selected component). However, this is taught in analogous art, Gold (e.g. para [0030], “… After Display Current Application State at 304, is Wait for User Input at 306, User Entered Changes to Application Data at 308, Application State Updated with User Inputs at 310, Validate Updated Application State at 312, and then it is determined whether State Validation was Successful at 314.. ...”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Singh with the invention of Gold because it provides techniques for enabling developers and users to change and validate applications while the applications are running. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for enabling developers and users to change and validate applications while the applications are running as suggested by Gold (see para [0009]).
With respect to claim 2, Singh discloses wherein validating whether the updated value of the selected component reflects the expected change further comprises:
determining whether an accessibility-exposed attribute of the component is updated such that the attribute is readable by a mobile device assistive technology (e.g. para [0070], “… As a non-limiting example, the pre-validation data my include image data showing the cursor at the central point or somewhere over the interior of the target control and the RCNN model may be utilized to verify the cursor has been successfully moved over the target control. …” wherein RCNN reads on a mobile device assistive technology).
With respect to claim 3, Singh discloses wherein the expected change is determined based on a predefined behavior of the selected component in response to the at least one automated interaction (e.g. para [0070], “… As a non-limiting example, the pre-validation data my include image data showing the cursor at the central point or somewhere over the interior of the target control and the RCNN model may be utilized to verify the cursor has been successfully moved over the target control. …” wherein successfully moved over the target control suggests a predefined behavior).
With respect to claim 4, Singh discloses wherein the value of a component includes at least one of: an independent value, dependent value, a binary value, a numeric value, text inputted by a user into a text field, a selected option among a group of options, and a combination thereof (e.g. para [0063], “After execution of either text validation logic 334 or text and icon validation logic 340, process 300 may proceed to matching logic 336. Matching logic 336 may be configured to determine whether the current region corresponds to the waypoint configured by mapping logic 324 (e.g., whether the current region matches TreeViewData.Text based on text validation logic 334 or TreeViewData.Text and TreeViewData.Icon based on text and icon validation logic 340).. …”).
With respect to claim 5, Singh discloses wherein the mobile-device assistive technology is not required to be actively enabled during performance of the automated interaction (e.g. para [0071], “After the time period for delaying the action is complete, the process 400 may proceed to execution logic 414 and the action may be performed (e.g., the control may be clicked). Once the action is executed, …, the validation logic 416 may be configured to use the RCNN model to determine whether the state of the UI matches the state of the UI indicated in the image data, text data, or other types of information included in the post-validation data... …” the paragraph indicate that the RCNN is not required to be actively enabled during action of execution logic).
With respect to claim 6, Singh discloses wherein the current value and the updated value are accessibility attributes (e.g. para [0069], “… In an aspect, the action initiating element may be moved to the location defined by CPx, CPy. It is noted that in some aspects the central point may correspond to a center of the target control, while in other aspects the central point may merely represent a location that is within the boundaries of the actionable area of the control. Once the instructions are generated, the move to target logic 410 may execute the instructions to move the action initiating element to the central point. …” wherein location data are accessibility attributes).
With respect to claim 7, Singh discloses wherein an accessibility issue relates to whether the selected component exposes updated state information in a manner perceivable, operable, understandable, or robust according to accessibility standards (e.g. para [0069], “… In an aspect, the action initiating element may be moved to the location defined by CPx, CPy. It is noted that in some aspects the central point may correspond to a center of the target control, while in other aspects the central point may merely represent a location that is within the boundaries of the actionable area of the control. Once the instructions are generated, the move to target logic 410 may execute the instructions to move the action initiating element to the central point. …” wherein location data read on such updated state information).
With respect to claim 8, Singh discloses further comprising: running the mobile application test automation framework to execute the at least one automated interaction with the selected component (e.g. Fig. 4, steps 404-414).
With respect to claim 9, Singh discloses further comprising:
retrieving at least one visual representation of the selected component of the GUI (e.g. para [0049], “… The localization logic 306 scan (e.g., using the RCNN model of the automation engine 120 of FIG. 1) the tree view displayed within the UI to determine whether the area of interest is displayed. …”); and
validating visual accessibility properties of the selected component that are not otherwise determinable (e.g. para [0059], “… The RCNN model may then be used to detect the precise location of the scroll down icon using computer vision techniques, as described above, and then activate the scroll down icon one or more times to perform scrolling.”).
With respect to claim 10, Singh discloses wherein validating visual accessibility properties of the selected component further comprises:
validating any one of: sufficient color contrast of the selected component, sufficient focus indicators of the selected component, or sufficient state-dependent styling of the selected component (e.g. para [0049], “… In some aspects, the scanning may only be performed for a portion of the displayed portion of the tree view (e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.). Once the initial scanning is performed, processing may proceed to root and child logic 308. Root and child logic 308 may be configured to leverage the model to classify the scanned portion of the model to identify the root and first child of the tree view. …” wherein root and child read on sufficient focus indicators of the selected component).
Regarding claim 13, it is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 13. Note that, Singh teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for detecting accessibility issues in a mobile device software application, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to (e.g. Fig. 1):
Regarding claim 14, it is directed to A system to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 14. Note that, Singh teaches A system for detecting accessibility issues in a mobile device software application comprising:
one or more processors configured to (e.g. Fig. 1):
Regarding claim 15, it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 17, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 18, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 19, it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 21, it recites same features as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 22, it recites same features as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 23, it recites same features as claim 10, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 11, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20230214239 A1, hereinafter “Singh”) in view of Gold et al. (US 20060015857 A1, hereinafter “Gold”) as applied to claims 1, 14, and 15 respectively, in further view of Ekron (US 20220366131 A1, hereinafter “Ekron”).
With respect to claim 11, Singh as modified by Gold discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a mobile-device assistive technology is configured to assist visually-impaired users to navigate the mobile application. However, this is taught in analogous art, Ekron (e.g. para [0482], “…. Screen Reader profile 3406 may adapt website 3404 for use with a screen reader assisting a user (e.g., user 110A of FIG. 1) in navigating and consuming the content of website 3404 on a specific device (e.g., computing device 170A), for example by audibly presenting content of website 3404 that is otherwise presented only visually. … Processing device 210A may thus obtain an indication of screen reader usage for navigating and consuming website content, for example to allow visually impaired user 110A to navigate website 3404 via links 3416 to 3428 and consume the digital content of images 3408, 3410, 3412.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Ekron because it provides techniques for altering website presentations to make the websites accessible to various users. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for altering website presentations to make the websites accessible to various users as suggested by Ekron (see para [0004-0005]).
With respect to claim 16, Singh as modified by Gold discloses The method of claim 15, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the current value and the updated value are auditory outputs. However, this is taught in analogous art, Ekron (e.g. para [0088], “…. For example, while video content can be used to communicate information visually, audio content may require alternatives, such as transcripts and captions, so that it is accessible for people with auditory disabilities. In one embodiment, upon selection of the audio impairment profile, the disclosed software may provide transcripts and captions of audio content, adjust the text size and colors of captions, provide options to stop, pause, adjust the volume of audio content (independently of the system volume), and generate high-quality foreground audio that is clearly distinguishable from any background noise.” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 11.)
Regarding claim 24, it recites same features as claim 11, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20230214239 A1, hereinafter “Singh”) in view of Gold et al. (US 20060015857 A1, hereinafter “Gold”) as applied to claims 1, and 14 respectively, in further view of Sugimoto et al. (US 20230418568 A1, hereinafter “Sugimoto”).
With respect to claim 12, Singh as modified by Gold discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising:
prior to performing the at least one automated interaction with the selected component, statically validating at least one accessibility requirement without interacting with the selected component, including checking at least one of: presence of an accessible name, presence of an accessible role, presence of an accessible value, semantic correctness of accessibility-exposed attributes, or color contrast compliance based on a screenshot or other visual representation of the selected component, and wherein a failure of the static validation indicates an accessibility issue associated with the selected component. However, this is taught in analogous art, Sugimoto (e.g. para [0125], “…. In this way, the graphical view 2302 allows the user to verify the correct placement and formatting of text displayed on the view 2302, to verify that the expected device parameters are presented on the view 2302 for editing by the end user, to verify that requisite graphical controls (e.g., buttons, data entry fields, drop-down windows, checkboxes, etc.) are present and operate correctly, to verify that the category window 1008 lists the correct configuration categories for the device, or to verify other visual or functional features of the view 2302. ….”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Sugimoto because it provides techniques for dynamic validation of profile view edits, rendering of graphical previews of the modified device profile view, and submission of both code-based and graphical profile view edits. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for dynamic validation of profile view edits, rendering of graphical previews of the modified device profile view, and submission of both code-based and graphical profile view edits as suggested by Sugimoto (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 25, it recites same features as claim 12, and is rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding art rejections filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered and are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights