DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3 November 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 18-20, 36-37 and 40-41 have been amended.
The art rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-47 are pending. Claims 1 and 20 are independent claims.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 in length. 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. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-47 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 the limitation “sequence between components ” in the “…determine” step. However, the previous “…converting” limitation already introduced the elements/term(s) “components”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “components should depend on “components” of the previous limitation or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “defining a sequence between said components”.
Claim 20 recite this similar issue as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “semantic and geometrical relationships and parent-child relationships” in the “while taking into account…” portion of the “to create said mobile layout” step. However, the previous “determine” limitation already introduced the elements/terms “semantic and geometrical relationships” and “parent-child relationships”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/terms “semantic and geometrical relationships” and “parent-child relationships should depend on “semantic and geometrical relationships” and “parent-child relationships” of the previous limitation or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “while taking into account…said semantic and geometrical relationships and said parent-child relationships”.
Claims 20, 40-41 recite this similar issue as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said identified predecessor component" in the determining step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “both said identified component and said identified container component”.
Claim 20 recite this similar issue as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 15-16, 20-23, 25-27, 29-30, 33-34, 43, and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanevsky (US 6300947, pat. 109/2001) in further view of Suehiro et al (US 20100299591, pub. 11/25/2010) in further view of Bailor et al (US20130151940, 6/13/2013) in further view of Davidson et al (US 6083276, 2000)
As per independent claim 1, Kanesvky discloses a converter for a website building system (Claim 1) comprising:
hardware processor (FIG 2)
conversion unit running on said hardware processor, for converting a website page with components in a desktop layout on a desktop display area to a mobile layout on a mobile display area and to create a mobile layout for mobile display from layout modifications to said desktop layout (Col 7 lines 10-47; Col 10, lines 35-51; Col 14 lines 58-67; Col 11 lines 1-24, Col 13 lines 66-Col 16 line 36 : Kanevsky discloses a websites. Websites comprises webpages. Webpages are website pages. (Col 5, lines 1-4; Col 7, lines 25-26). Kanevsky discloses converting a webpage from a first layout with a first window size (i.e. PC (desktop) layout on a standard PC display monitor)to another layout having another window size (i.e. webphone having its own layout, wherein the webphone have smaller screens than desktops). FIG 6 and 7 shows a desktop/PC layout that is converted into a mobile layout. FIG 7; Col 10, 35-51 shows the display of a desktop/PC layout on a so desktop/PC source display area and the display of the mobile layout on a display area after the website has been converted. Fig. 1, 3, Col 7 lines 56-64; Col. 8 lines 16-23 Discloses a website page from a system that builds websites that gets the web page’s desktop/PC layout and the object model representation of elements. The desktop/PC layout and the object model representation is the content of the web page like the URL/CGI information. FIG 8, 10, 12; Col 10, lines 56-59: Discloses elements of a web page being visual elements that display content. They are arranged in a certain fashion based on the instructions. Col 7, lines 31-34; FIG 10: Discloses webpages have components which are arranged in a particular order. Components of webpages are added or deleted. Doing so would change the arrangement of components. FIG 10 shows a layout modification that results an icon being removed and being placed on a new page. The adding or deleting components modified are received by the desktop layout where the changes to the desktop layout caused a new (updated mobile) layout to be generated.)
a receiver to receive said website page (Fig. 1, 3, Col 7 lines 56-64; Col. 8 lines 16-23: Discloses a web page adaptor server to receive a website page from a system that builds websites that gets the web page’s source layout and the object model representation of elements.)
a processor to determine component positions for said desktop layout, by analyzing a component order having a sequence between components, semantic and geometrical relationships between components together with components contained within other components in a hierarchy and to create said mobile layout from said component positions and dimensions of said mobile display while taking into account said component order, semantic and geometrical relationships; (Col 7 lines 10-47; Col 10, lines 35-51, Col 14 lines 58-67; Col 11 lines 1-24, Col 13 lines 66-Col 16 line 36 :The web page adaptor server will create a set of relationships among the components(web page objects) and figure out the order to put the components in (e.g. sequence between components). The web page adaptor server will create a mobile layout(adapted set of web pages) that will fit in the mobile display area(client device screen of a webphone). The mobile layout will have different size attributes (dimensions) from the desktop/PC layout since mobile display have smaller screens than desktops which means the dimensions of the mobile layout is smaller than the desktop. The mobile layout is built based on/according to semantic analysis, information about the set of relationships with components and the order of the components should be in. The set of relationships is created by a semantic interpreter module. The semantic interpreter module is part of the operator module which is part of the web page adaptor server. Kanevsky describes where a desktop website is being converted to fit on a mobile device – in doing so, it will match nodes based on semantics. The semantic interpreter detects semantic relationship sets where the nodes(web objects) are closely related to each other. These web objects can be links and icons. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships, when doing so the nodes that go together will be coupled/paired (Col 14 lines 58-67). Objects that are the same or similar close are paired. Furthermore, Kanevsky teaches that it will compare nodes and match them based on semantics and geometrical parameters. (relationships) Nodes(web page data objects) are determined from a website document(web script). Information about the nodes’ type, size, relationship, and location can be retrieved by looking at the information within the node. That is information about the text size or icon/image shape and size can be retrieved. The information discloses what type of content that node is (icon, text, image) In the automatic web page adaption module are the prioritizer and the operator module. The prioritizer and the operator module will together analyze or understand the nodes(web page data objects). The semantic interpreter module which is located within the operator module will look at the information content of a node and determine which nodes are related to each other and put them together. When looking at the information content it is looking at the values of various attributes – like content of the text, size, location, relationship. Size and location are the geometrical parameters of the node being used for matching up the nodes. To figure out how to order the components(web page objects) to the mobile layout(adapted set of web pages), the data separator, the prioritizer, the operator module, and the combining module all work together. Web page objects that need to be together are kept together and are maintained and placed in the proper order. In particular, Kanesvky discloses analyzing the components, such as icons, of a webpage to determine the title/name of a icon. (Col 3, ll 13-15; col 11, line 67 – Col 12, line 10)The name/title of an icon is a component of the icon itself. Thus, the layout identifies the text of an icon, a form of a component within a component. The prioritizer and the semantic interpreter module (located within the operator module) together group related web objects and creates a hierarchy of super-nodes(a graph of web objects that are related to each. See also Col 11, lines 1-24 that splits the elements into groups. These groups comprise objects which represent the objects of the group. (col 11, line 67 – Col 12, line 10) This is a form of components within components. FIG 7/Col 10, 35-51: discloses the mobile layout comprises different size attributes (dimensions of smaller screens) than what it was originally was to accommodate for the device with a smaller display)
a reconverter to created said updated mobile layout according to at least said desktop modifications (Col 7, lines 31-34; FIG 10: Discloses webpages have components which are arranged in a particular order (placement). Components of webpages are added or deleted. Doing so would change the arrangement (placement) of components. FIG 10 shows a layout modification that results an icon being removed and being placed on a new page. The adding or deleting components modified are received by the desktop layout where the changes to the desktop layout caused a new (updated mobile) layout to be generated. In addition: Col 7 lines 10-47; Col 10, lines 35-51, Col 14 lines 58-67; Col 11 lines 1-24, Col 13 lines 66-Col 16 line 36: As explained above, Kanevsky discloses the mobile layout is created based on/according to semantic analysis, information about the set of relationships and the order the components should be in.
identifies a component/added component according to said component order; determining a placement position for said added component ( Col 7, lines 31-34; Col 9, lines 35-41: Components are added or deleted: In addition, The set of relationships is created by a semantic interpreter module. The semantic interpreter module is part of the operator module which is part of the web page adaptor server. Kanevsky describes where a desktop website is being converted to fit on a mobile device – in doing so, it will match nodes based on semantics. The semantic interpreter detects semantic relationship sets where the nodes(web objects) are closely related to each other. These web objects can be links and icons. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships, when doing so the nodes that go together will be coupled/paired (Col 14 lines 58-67). Objects that are the same or similar close are paired. Furthermore, Kanevsky teaches that it will compare nodes and match them based on semantics and geometrical parameters. (relationships) Nodes(web page data objects) are determined from a website document(web script). Information about the nodes’ type, size, and location can be retrieved by looking at the information within the node. That is information about the text size or icon/image shape and size can be retrieved. The information discloses what type of content that node is (icon, text, image) In the automatic web page adaption module are the prioritizer and the operator module. The prioritizer and the operator module will together analyze or understand the nodes(web page data objects). The semantic interpreter module which is located within the operator module will look at the information content of a node and determine which nodes are related to each other and put them together. When looking at the information content it is looking at the values of various attributes – like content of the text, size, location. Size and location are the geometrical parameters of the node being used for matching up the nodes. To figure out how to order/place the components(web page objects) to the mobile layout(adapted set of web pages), the data separator, the prioritizer, the operator module, and the combining module all work together. Web page objects that need to be together are kept together and are maintained and placed in the proper order. Thus, Kanesky discloses determine updated positions for said components for placement on mobile layout according to at least said desktop modifications).
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a processor to determine component positions for said desktop layout, components contained within other components in a container hierarchy having parent-child relationships…while taking account said parent-child relationships; identifies a component that precedes an added component according to said component order; identifies a container component that contains added component according to said parent-child relationship, determining a placement position for said added component according to both identified predecessor component and said identified container component. However, Suehiro discloses a (re)converter that figures out the (re)arrangement of the elements (positioning of elements) within a new (to be made) mobile document according to some type of order criteria when it creates the new document in a mobile format. The process being by a drawing tree/container hierarchy is created in response to a parsed original document. In the document tree, elements are stored in blocks(super-node)/containers. The document tree contains the parent-child relationship information of the elements and the arrangement coordinate information of the elements. Using the drawing tree, the converter generates a new document by rearranging the placement (positioning) of the original parts (webpage elements placement) according to the predetermined rules that includes on parent-child relationship information of the elements, the arrangement coordinate information of the elements, and in accordance with a specification of the mobile terminal. The rearrangement includes changes that configured the new web page that does not require horizontal scrolling and also include elements being shifted, cut, folded, added, etc. Therefore, Suehiro shows the arrangement of elements on how they appear on the new mobile document is based on predetermined order criteria described above. In other words, Suehiro discloses a reconverter to determine component positions for said desktop layout, components contained within other components in a container hierarchy having parent-child relationships; determine updated positions for said components for placement on said updated mobile layout according to at least parent-child relationships (Abstract, 0067-0068, 0087-0089, 0098, 00113). Furthermore, Suehiro discloses searching for a parent/preceding component within said updated mobile layout which is closest to an added component (As stated, 0089 discloses rearranges the parts placement to be suitable for the mobile terminal, based on the parent-child relationship of the parts and the coordinate information when converting a PC web page into a mobile page. Furthermore 0095 discloses adding an image to be positioned during the rearranging (form of added component). Suehiro states the arrangement position of the image is determined by the coordinates of the block element of its parent. In other words, identifying the (nearest) parent in order to properly position the added image into the mobile layout. Furthermore, as stated, elements are placed in blocks (containers) and another block element may be included in the block element. (0085) Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that when the added element is finally placed as result of the identified parent component and identified coordinates of the block element of its parent, it is placed into its own block/container within the block element of the parent based on the parent-child relationship. Thus, doing so would result in a generated block/container matching the positioning of the added image.
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Suehiro since it would have enabled the conversion from the PC contents to the mobile contents in real time on occasion demands, and therefore, the contents provider does not have to have a bother of creating a web site specific to a mobile site, separately from the PC web site. (0071)
However, the cited art specifically fails to disclose create an updated mobile layout for said mobile display from layout modifications to both said desktop layout and to said mobile layout; a desktop editor to enable a user of said WBS to generate desktop modifications; a mobile editor to enable said user to generate mobile layout modifications to said mobile layout. However, Bailor discloses receiving edits to a first instance a document from a first user and edits to a second instance of the document from a second user. (0033, 0040, 0081, 0084) Bailor discloses an application used to edit the document can be on various clients such as a desktop computer and a mobile phone. (0029, 0088: lists SharePoint wherein one of skilled artisan knows webpages can be created and edited in SharePoint ) 0029 clearly states fixed or mobile computing devices such as desktops or smartphones may be used) FIG 10 discloses a system of two clients editing their own instances of a document where the changes are merged together. Since the clients can be a desktop computer or a mobile device, a first user/client edits a first instance of a document on their desktop computer (e.g., desktop computer) and a second user/client edits a second instance of the document on their mobile device (e.g., mobile editor). Thus, since the first client is a desktop computer and has an application used for editing a desktop instance of a document, Bailor discloses enable to a user of said WBS to generate desktop modifications. In addition, since the second client is a mobile device and has an application used for editing a mobile instance of a document, Bailor discloses a mobile version of the application to generate mobile layout modifications. Furthermore, Bailor discloses the edits include adding and/or deleting components and the positioning/reorder of content for the placement of content. In particular, the edits include moving clips to a tile( a form of component with an component) and reordering the order/positioning of the clips within the tile (0079, 0081; Table 3) (0079, 0084). Bailor discloses the edits from both users (both instances of the document) are merged into a single document. (0020, 0072) Furthermore, the edits made to the document are kept in the change record. (0034) In other words, a history of each edit is kept. All of the change records are obtained and merged to be applied into a single document. Therefore, the history of each edit are obtained from each client to be applied to the single document. Thus, the change records of both desktop and mobile editing session are obtained and applied to the single document
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cited art with Bailor since Bailor would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing the tools that beginners and experts alike need to efficiently create and maintain spectacular.
Furthermore, the cited art explicitly fails to identifies a container component that contains said added component within a container hierarchy according to said parent-child relationships, and determining a placement position for said added component according to both said identified predecessor component and said identified container component. However, Davidson et al discloses the process of adding a component to a container in a container hierarchy (root element having parent elements and child elements). (FIG 4D; Col 6, ll. 66- Col 7, ll.5, Col.27, ll. 1-41 )Davidson discloses identifying the correct placement for a child element. A parent element is identified wherein it is determined if the parent element is also a container component. If the identified parent component is also identified as a container element, then the child element is added to parent elements. (FIG 4; Col. 27, ll. 35-42) Thus, Davidson discloses identifying a parent component and a container component for the added component to be placed in. Therefore, Davidson discloses a placement position for the child/added component based on the parent element/component and container component wherein the container component was identified within a container hierarchy according to parent child relationships.
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cited art with Davidson since Davidson would have provided the benefit of quickly and easily configure component based applications without requiring extensive programming expertise (Col 1; ll. 40-43)
Therefore, in conjunction of Davidson with the cited art, the combination overall collectively teaches a processor to determine component positions for said desktop layout by analyzing a component order defining a sequence between components, semantic and geometrical relationships between components together with components contained within other components in a container hierarchy having parent-child relationships therein, and to create said mobile layout from said component positions and dimensions of said mobile display while taking into account said component order, semantic and geometrical relationships and parent-child relationships…said reconverter identifies a component that precedes an added component according to said component order; and identifies a container component that contains said added component within a container hierarchy according to said parent-child relationships, and determining a placement position for said added component according to both said identified predecessor component and said identified container component.
As per dependent claim 2, Kanevsky discloses
a preprocessor to analyze object properties of said components and to modify their suitability for presentation on said mobile display area; (Col 7 lines 57- Col 9, line 43; FIG 2, 3, 8, 9: discloses a processor that analyzes the elements (web page data) based in its properties and modify them so they will be suitable for display on the mobile display(client machine). The preprocessor is done by various components within the web page adaptor server. The URL/CGI instruction interpreter module with the matching module and the search module will determine if the web page can fit the client machine’s display with no modification or with a pre-existing URL/CGI model. If this not possible then the closest pre-existing URL/CGI model is selected and the automatic web page adaption module will analyze the web page data or web page objects and modify them so they fit and are appropriate on the client machine)
a super-node creator to locate groups of said components which should remain together and to create a hierarchy of super-nodes having sub elements, to represent the components of said located groups according to the location of said components and the content relationships of said elements; (Col 10 lines 52-67; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 14 lines 4-14; Col 14 line 58-Col 16 line 10; Fig. 8(802, 804); Fig. 9(905)). building out a graph of semantic relationships and when doing so a node structure aka super-node will be needed to store the components(web objects). The super-node creator is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. The prioritizer and the semantic interpreter module (located within the operator module) together group related web objects and creates a hierarchy of super-nodes(a graph of web objects that are related to each. See also Col 11, lines 1-24 that splits the elements into groups. These groups comprise objects which represent the objects of the group; thus, having sub-elements. Col 14 discloses combining objects)
an orderer to determine an order for the sub elements within a super- node ((Col 7 lines 57-Col 9 line 41; Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 lines 66 - Col 16 line 36: building out a graph of semantic relationships and when doing so a node structure aka super-node will be needed to store the elements(web objects). The orderer is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. The prioritizer, the operator module, and the combining module will figure out together how to put in order the web objects so they can fit onto the target screen. Using the information from the URL/CGI model, the semantic interpreter (located within the operator module), and the information from the prioritizer, these three modules figure out how to place these web objects in the appropriate order)
a placer to place said elements within said mobile layout according to at least one of said determined orders reserved spaces and said groups; (Col 13 66-67; Col 14, line 1-Col 16 line 36; Col 7 lines 42-44; Fig. 1(107);Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9: Discloses a placer that will place the elements(web objects) to the mobile layout(adapted web page or transformed web page see FIG 7; Col 10, ll 36-51). The operator module and the combining module work together to place the web objects onto the transformed web page. The web objects are placed according to the group of components(web objects) they belong to and the determined order(the information from the URL/CGI model, the semantic interpreter, and the information from the prioritizer). These two modules do the work to place the web objects accordingly and create the transformed web page(s))
a post processor to adjust said placed elements before display (Col 13 66-67; Col 14, line 1-Col 16 line 36; Col 7 lines 42-44; Fig. 1(107);Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9)
As per dependent claim 3, Kanevsky discloses the elements are at least one of atomic components, single-page container components and multi-page container components. (Col 10 lines 52-67; Col 11 lines 1-4; Col 12 lines 53-56; Fig. 8).
As per dependent claim 4, Kanevsky discloses wherein said converter is implementable on at least one of: a client, a server and a third party server.(Fig. 1).
As per dependent claim 5, Kanevsky discloses comprises at least one of: a template handler to modify instances of said components in templates, a component filterer to filter said components not suitable for said mobile layout; a component adapter to adapt said components to said mobile layout; a component adjuster to adjust said components to said mobile layout; and a component analyzer to analyze the attributes of said components to determine their usage suitability. (Col 15, lines 62 – Col 16, line 10: Discloses a module that determine if objects should be stripped/removed and deletes them, a form of filtering.)
As per dependent claim 7, Kanevsky discloses wherein said orderer comprises at least one of: a basic orderer to determine a sequence of said sub elements according to a predefined order criteria; a partial order set locator to analyze at least one of semantics, content, attributes, editing history and geometry of said sub elements of said super-nodes; a scorer to determine a certainty score for the correctness of said basic orderer and said partial order set locators and an order integrator to integrate the sequence determined by said basic orderer with detected partial order sets located by said partial order set locator to create a merged modified order. (Col 11 lines 1-24; Col 13 66-67; Col 14 lines 1-67; Col 15 lines 1-67; Col 16 lines 1-36; Fig. 8(802, 804, 805); Fig. 9: Discloses a partial orderer set locator. The partial orderer set locator is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. Those components are the prioritizer and the operator module. The prioritizer, and the operator module will together analyze or understand the elements(web objects) The elements are analyzed by using the instructions from the URL/CGI model or the semantic interpreter module, the elements’ attributes(ex. font and font size, cookie info on links), and the elements’ geometry(size of text, icon shape and size)
As per dependent claim 8, Claim 8 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. However, the cited art fails to disclose an automatically added component inserter to insert at least one of automatically added components and mobile-related components. However, based on the rejection of Claim 8 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Suehiro discloses an automatically added component inserter(conversion processor) that inserts both automatically added components and mobile-related components. This job is done by the conversion processor which is located in the conversion server. The conversion processor inserts in the target/mobile layout automatically added components like the advertisements and mobile-related components like a menu widget. See Figures 9 and 10 for menu widget. (FIG 9, 10; 0064, 00113)
As per dependent claim 9, Kanevsky fails to disclose determining a basic orderer to sequence of said sub elements of said super-nodes according to a predefined order criteria and wherein said basic orderer comprises at least one of: a primary direction orderer to sequence said sub elements of said super-nodes according to at least one of rows and columns; a primary direction with split and merge orderer to sequence said sub elements of said super-nodes according to at least one of rows and columns and to track any row/column splitting and merging; and a horizontal/vertical slicer to alternate horizontal and vertical slicing of said sub elements of said super-nodes to create an internal tree of divisions and define a sequence of display for said elements. However, based on the rejection of Claim 8 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Suehiro discloses a converter that figures out the (re)arrangement of the elements within a new (to be made) mobile document according to some type of order criteria when it creates the new document in a mobile format. The process being by a drawing tree is created in response to a parsed original document. In the document tree, elements are stored in blocks(super-node). The document tree contains the parent-child relationship information of the elements and the arrangement coordinate information of the elements. Using the drawing tree, the converter generates a new document by rearranging the placement of the original parts (webpage elements placement) according to the predetermined rules that includes on parent-child relationship information of the elements, the arrangement coordinate information of the elements, and in accordance with a specification of the mobile terminal. The rearrangement includes changes that configured the new web page that does not require horizontal scrolling and also include elements being shifted, cut, folded, added, etc. Therefore, Suehiro shows the arrangement of elements on how they appear on the new mobile document is based on predetermined order criteria described above. Furthermore, it is implicit for the converter to perform the functionality for the parts/elements to be rearrangement in a particular fashion within the created mobile document, then the sequence of elements in a particular order had to be determine by the converter in ordered produce the mobile document arranged in that particular fashion. (Abstract, 0067-0068, 0087-0089, 0098, 00113)
Furthermore, Suehiro discloses a primary direction with split and merge orderer to sequence said elements of said super-nodes according to at least one of rows and columns and to track any row/column splitting and merging (0089-0113, Fig. 7; Fig 9-10; Fig. 11(S16); Fig.12: discloses a primary direction with split and merge orderer (conversion processor) that puts the elements(parts or elements) in either the proper row or column order. In order to make things fit on the new display screen the conversion processor will sequence the elements either in the proper row or column order and also track when rows and columns are split and merged. Look at the transformation of Fig. 7 to Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. The top row of elements 222 thru 237 are put into a column order and merged under element 211. See how element 241, elements(251 thru 256), elements(261-265) and elements(271-272) are spilt apart and put in a vertical column order. If two elements cannot fit in the same row on the small screen, then the element on the right could be shown by shifting it down below in the vertical direction)
As per dependent claim 11, Kanevsky discloses a partial orderer set locator (Col 11, lines 1-24; Col 13, line 66 - Col 16 line 26; FIG 8, 9: The partial orderer set locator is made of various components in the automatic web page adaption module. Those components are the prioritizer and the operator module) as explained above. Furthermore, Kanevsky discloses a semantic partial order locator set to detect a semantic relationship partial order set when there are specific combinations of said sub elements of said super-nodes of given types which are close together (Col 14 lines 58-67; Col 15 lines 59-61: Discloses a semantic partial order locator set(semantic interpreter) that detects semantic relationship sets where the elements(web objects) in super-nodes are closely related to each other. These web objects can be links and icons. Kanevsky mentions building out a graph of semantic relationships, when doing so some type of node structure aka super-node is needed to store the elements(web objects)
As per dependent claim 12, based on the rejection of Claim 8 and the rationale along with the motivation incorporated, Suehiro discloses wherein said at least one of automatically added components and mobile-related components include at least one of mobile device specific widgets, navigation menus, advertisements and promotional material (FIG 9-11; 0064, 0113: teaches that automatically added components are advertisements and promotional material and mobile-related added components are a menu widget. See Figures 9 and 10 for menu widget)
As per dependent claim 15, Kanevsky discloses a component adapter (Col 7, line 57-Col 9, line 43; Col 15, lines 12-61; Fig. 3(204, 205), Fig. 9(905, 902, 903):shows a component adapter. The component adapter is made of the search module and the semantic interpreter module. These modules will modify the web objects in some form to fit in the target/mobile layout. The search module tries to find an URL/CGI model that closely fits the target/mobile layout thus adapting the web objects to a new display size. If there is no ready made URL/CGI model, then thru the semantic interpreter module by using the information from the URL/CGI model or using the information from the semantic interpreter, the web objects get adapted. The textual transformation module adapts the text information. The icon transformation module adapts the icons in various ways. These modules are within the semantic interpreter module. In addition, Kanevsky discloses a modifier to modify the size and width of said elements (Fig. 9(905, 902, 903); Fig. 14; Col 15 lines 12-61: shows a modifier that changes the size and width of the elements(web objects). The changing of the size and width of the elements (web objects) happens in the semantic interpreter module. Size and width of the text changes in the textual transformation module and size and width of icons are changed in the icon transformation module) and a character converter to convert character based graphics (Fig. 9(905, 902, 903); Fig. 14; Col 15 lines 12-61: a character convertor that converts character based graphics. Converting the character based graphics like text and icons happens in the semantic interpreter module. Size and width of the text changes in the textual transformation module. Font changes also take place to the text. Size and width of icons are changed in the icon transformation module).
However, Kanevsky fails to disclose a uniter to unite menu components ,a content updater to update content related adaptations; a creator to create composite menus. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1,8 and the rationale along with the motivation incorporated, Suehiro discloses a uniter to unite menu components (0089, 102-104: shows a uniter to unite menu components. The conversion processor will unite menu components and create one menu. See the transformation of Figure 7 to Figures 9 and 10. Elements 231 thru 237 in Figure 7 are navigational links or menu items put into one menu which is Element 211 in Figure 7); a content updater to update content related adaptations (0089, 102-104: shows a content updater to update content related adaptations. The conversion processor will update any of the content that is related or part of the desktop website. It will update the target/mobile layout with the adapted content. The adapted content being text, images, menus, and links) and a creator to create composite menus (0089, 102-104: shows a creator to create composite menus. The conversion processor will create composite menus. See the transformation of Figure 7 to Figures 9 and 10. Elements 231 thru 237 in Figure 7 are navigational links or menu items put into a menu which is Element 211 in Figure 7)
As per dependent claim 16, Kanevsky discloses wherein said component adjuster comprises a mapper to create font-size mapping between said desktop layout and said mobile layout (Fig. 9; Col. 15 lines 12-37: Discloses a mapper to map the font size appropriately between the source/desktop layout and the mobile/target layout(adapted web page). This is done by the textual transformation module which is located in semantic interpreter module. The font of the text will be changed, so the text can fit in the new display size)
As per independent claim 20, Claim 20 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claims 21-23, 25, 34, Claims 21-23, 25, 28, and 34 recite similar limitations as in Claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 16, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claims 26, 27, 30, 33, Claims 26, 27, 30, 33, recite similar limitations as in Claims 8, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 29, Claim 29 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1, 8, 11 and are rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 43, Kanevsky discloses wherein said determining and creating employ hints provided by at least one of said components and a pre-defined template of said components (Fig. 8, 9; Col 11 lines 14- Col 12 line 19; Col 13 lines 66 -Col 14 line 14; Col 14, line 58- Col 15 line 11: Discloses figuring out and creating hints(information about the web components for proper layout) by analyzing the components. This done by gathering information from the web page data and the URL/CGI instructions for that web page data. The prioritizer and semantic interpreter do the work of analyzing the components(web page objects) to figure out and create the hints(information about the web components for proper layout). By understanding what web page objects are needed based on priority and how they relate to each other by building a graph of related web page objects, information about the web page objects are gathered and used for proper layout)
As per dependent claims 46 and 47, Kanevsky wherein a desktop modification comprises at least one a component addition, a component deletion, a component move and a component resize. (Col 7, lines 31-34; Col 9, lines 35-41: Components are added or deleted.) Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale incorporated, Bailor discloses the desktop and mobile modifications may be adding, deleting, or moving components (0079, 0081; table 1)
Claims 6, 10, 13, 17, 24, 28, 31, 35, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanevsky in further view of Suehiro in further view of Bailor et al in further view of Davidson et al in further view of Chen (US 7203901, 4/10/2007).
As per dependent claim 6, Kanevsky fails to disclose at least one of: an overlap group locator to locate a group of said components wherein said components are highly overlapping and to replace said group with a virtual element according to the grouping criteria; a predefined group locator to locate a group of said components according to hints of at least one of template, application, page or component level and to replace said group with a virtual element according to the grouping criteria; a text over image group locator to locate components wherein said elements are text components that are overlaid over a specific background image to replace said group with a virtual element according to a grouping criteria; a scorer to determine a certainty score for the correctness of said overlap group locator, said predefined group locator and said text over image group locator; and a node creator to create said hierarchy of super-nodes according to sub elements and virtual elements.
However, Chen discloses a node creator to create a hierarchy of super-nodes according to said components and said virtual elements. (FIG 2, 5-7; Col 9 line 21—Col 10, line 31; Col 21, lines 15-27: Chen teaches a node creator that creates a hierarchy of super-nodes(nodes) made of components(tag sequence) and virtual elements(virtual node). By creating a hierarchy with actual elements and virtual elements, a visual boundary or a portion of the layout for the new display screen is being created. This visual boundary is to indicate that a given set of elements need to be visually together.
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the cited art with Chen since it would provided the benefit of an improved web page adaptation and re-authoring for small form factor devices. (Col 2, ll 4-6) In addition, the adding of software code would create a hierarchy of elements and virtual elements so to group elements that should stay together visually in the new smaller display screen. Since all the web elements cannot all at once fit on the small screen size, it is required to break apart the web page and create smaller groups of displayed information, where these smaller groups would be the virtual elements(virtual nodes). This helps to preserve the flow of information as seen in the original source web page and the original visual design. Without these virtual nodes, web elements may be mixed up with unrelated web elements and there would be no proper flow of information.
As per dependent claim 10, Kanevsky discloses wherein said placer comprises at least one of: a hint interpreter to interpret hints attached to said sub elements of said super- nodes; a line break creator to create line breaks according to said hints created by said node creator and said orderer; a width reducer to reduce the width of said sub elements wherein said width reducer comprises at least one of a re-scaler, a font changer and a text re-flower and wherein said width reducer preserves visual design; a size adjuster to apply at least one of width and height adjustment to said sub elements of said super-nodes; and a resizer to resize decoration images. (Col 13, line 66 - Col 16, line 36; FIG 8, 9: Kanevsky discloses a hint interpreter to interpret hints attached to said elements of said super- nodes).
As per dependent claim 13, the cited art fails to disclose a horizontal/vertical slicer and said converter having a pattern partial order set locator and wherein said horizontal/vertical slicer comprises an element divider to determine the slicing direction of said sub elements of said super-nodes according to at least one of number of dividers, size of gaps found in the given projection direction, said located pattern partial order set and quality of alignment to axis projections in both directions. However, based on the rejection of Claim 6 and the rationale incorporated, Chen discloses a horizontal/vertical slicer (Fig. 2(214,216,218); Fig. 5, 6, 7, 8a, 8b; Col 11 lines 10-67; Col 12 lines 1-27: Chen discloses a horizontal/vertical slicer to alternate horizontal and vertical slicing of said elements of said super-nodes(nodes) to create an internal tree of divisions and define a sequence of display for said elements. In Fig. 2 and 6, shows how the elements are parsed put into nodes. These elements or groups of elements are sliced in both a horizontal and vertical manner put into logical blocks (internal tree of divisions) to make clear visual boundaries and create a proper display sequence for the elements). Furthermore, Chen discloses disclose said converter having a pattern partial order set locator and wherein said horizontal/vertical slicer comprises an element divider to determine the slicing direction of said elements of said super-nodes based on at least one of number of dividers, size of gaps found in the given projection direction, said located pattern partial order set and quality of alignment to axis projections in both directions (Fig. 2(214,216); Fig. 5, 6, 7; Col 9 line 32 - Col 11 lines 52: discloses it has an element divider that will figure out which direction to slice the elements in the super-nodes(nodes) based on the pattern partial order set and also on the size of the gaps. The clustering module groups and orders elements based on a pattern. The visual boundary detection module will use the information from the clustering module to figure out which direction to slice the elements in the nodes. The visual boundary detection module will also use implicit and explicit boundary rules to figure out which direction to slice the elements. One of the implicit boundary rules is to choose the widest gap)
As per dependent claim 17, Kanevsky discloses an image stitcher to stitch said components when said components are image components into a single image (Col 15 lines 38-61; Fig. 14). However, the cited art fails to disclose a decoration image handler to distinguish decoration images. However, based on the rejection of Claim 7 and the rationale incorporated, (FIG 4, 7: Col 8, lines 8-23: Chen teaches a decoration image handler that can make out decoration images. The Microsoft web page that is shown, there are horizontal and vertical lines which are a type of decoration image. These lines are identified when determining visual boundaries for the web page)
As per dependent claim 31, Claim 31 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and 13, and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 6 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Chen discloses detecting a partial order set when there are set patterns between said elements of said super-nodes (Fig. 2(216); Fig. 5,6; Col 9 lines 21-41 and lines 62-67; Col 10 lines 13-31: discloses where it detects a partial order set where there are set patterns between the elements in the super-nodes(nodes). In Fig. 6, see that pattern detection is used to determine which elements should be grouped together and keep them in order); Chen discloses a horizontal/vertical slicer to alternate horizontal and vertical slicing of said elements of said super-nodes(nodes) to create an internal tree of divisions and define a sequence of display for said elements. In Fig. 2 and 6, shows how the elements are parsed put into nodes. These elements or groups of elements are sliced in both a horizontal and vertical manner put into logical blocks (internal tree of divisions) to make clear visual boundaries and create a proper display sequence for the elements). (Fig. 2(214,216,218); Fig. 5, 6, 7, 8a, 8b; Col 11 lines 10-67; Col 12 lines 1-27)
As per dependent claim 38, based on the rejection of Claim 6 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Chen discloses said node creator performs at least one of removing and merging containers according to semantic analysis. (FIG 2, 7; Col 11, lines 10-52: Chen, discloses a node creator(clustering module and the visual boundary detection module) will remove containers as a result of doing semantic analysis or by understanding the relationships of the node hierarchy. See in Figure 7 how the container in the middle bottom half of the web page is being removed and spilt up. The container is removed and spilt into 4 sections 706a, 706b, 706c, 708. By splitting up the container into smaller sections, the content can better fit in the smaller screen)
As per dependent claims 24, 28, 35, 39, Claims 24, 28, 35, and 39, recite similar limitations as in Claims 6, 10, 17, 38 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 14 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanevsky in further view of Suehiro in further view of Bailor et al in further view of Davidson et al in further view of Grieve (US 8453049, pat. 5/28/2013).
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar limitations as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kanevsky discloses a remover to remove components not suitable for said mobile layout (Col 15 lines 62-67; Col 16 lines 1-10; Fig 9(904), (905), (802): discloses a remover which removes components(web objects) not suitable for the mobile layout(adapted web page). The removal of components is done within the stripping/adding module located within the operator module. It uses information from the prioritizer and the semantic interpreter to decide what web objects should be removed. If a web object has a low priority, it may be removed)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a hider to hide components not suitable for said mobile layout. However, Grieve discloses a hider which hides or comments out components (code Ex.Javascript code which calls upon web components) not suitable when getting ready to display a website(target/mobile layout). Code or web components that are not suitable or not essential are hidden or commented out based on the various situations. This is done so to have better performance. Reducing the latency of displaying the web site is a good thing. (Fig. 1-4; Col 1 lines 20-44; Col 2 lines 62-67; Col 3 lines 1-67; Col 4 lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cited art with Grieve’s disclosure of commenting out components since to comment out code or web components that are not needed or not suited based on the given situation when converting a website document. Using the idea of commenting out code or web components would have created a better performance and user experience by having a better and proper converted layout. It also allows the website designer to have the flexibility to look at the converted website document and determine what to do with the commented code or web components.
As per dependent claim 32, Claim 32 recites similar limitations as in Claim 14 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 18-19, 36-37, 40-41, 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanevsky in further view of Suehiro in further view of Bailor et al in further view of Davidson et al in further view of Hashmi (PGPub 20130326333, filed 6/3/2013)
As per dependent claim 18, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a page deleter to delete a page from said updated mobile layout when said page is deleted from said desktop layout; a page adder to add a page to said updated mobile layout when said page is added to said desktop layout; a component deleter to delete a component from said updated mobile layout when said component is deleted from said desktop layout; a component adder to add a component to said updated mobile layout when said component is added to said desktop layout; and a component modifier to modify a component from said updated mobile layout when said component is modified in said desktop layout. However, Hashmi discloses a page deleter to delete a page from said updated mobile layout when said page is deleted from said desktop layout; a page adder to add a page to said updated mobile layout when said page is added to said desktop layout; a component deleter to delete a component from said updated mobile layout when said component is deleted from said desktop layout; a component adder to add said added component to said updated mobile layout when said added component is added to said desktop layout; and a component modifier to modify a component from said updated mobile layout when said component is modified in said desktop layout;. (FIG 1, 4A,B-6; 0039, 0059-0065: Hashmi teaches when the external desktop website is updated those changes are reflected in the mobile website. This is called the Autosync feature. It will track what parts like pages and components got changed on the source layout(external desktop website) and apply those changes to the target/mobile layout(mobile website). The Content Marker is used to mark the contents of the external desktop website that are changed. The Marker Index Processor tracks these content changes. Depending on the implementation setup, either the Cron job module or the Live Mobile Site Generator will apply the content changes to the mobile website. Hashmi discloses these changes include: deleting a page from the target/mobile layout(MW – mobile website) when the page is deleted from the source layout(external desktop website), adding a page to the target/mobile layout(MW – mobile website) when the page is added to the source layout(external desktop website), deleting an element from the target/mobile layout(MW – mobile website) when the element is deleted from the source layout(external desktop website); adding an element to the target/mobile layout(MW – mobile website) when the element is added to the source layout(external desktop website); modifying an element to the target/mobile layout(MW – mobile website) when the element is modified to the source layout(external desktop website). Furthermore, Hashmi teaches when the mobile website is updated using an editor those changes are reflected in the mobile website. The target/mobile layout(mobile website) can be edited using an Editor module. Various parts of the mobile website can be added, deleted, and modified. Plugins can be added to enhance the mobile website. The Plugin Manager module will enable the plugins created for the mobile website.
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cited art with Hashmi since Hashmi would have provided the benefit of creating and maintaining optimized and stylized regular desktop websites into mobile compatible versions for mobile devices for easy interaction and efficiency as well new features now possible with various hardware capabilities of these phones. (0004)
As per dependent claim 19, Claim 19 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Furthermore, based on the rejection of claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Suehiro teaches the subject matter of identifies a component that precedes an added component according to said component order; identifies a container component that contains added component, determining a placement position for said added component according to both identified predecessor component and said identified container component. In addition, Davidson et al discloses identifying the container component that contains said added component. Furthermore, based on rejection of Claim 18 and the rationale, along with the motivation, to combine is incorporated, Hashmi discloses a mobile layout adder to insert said added component to said mobile layout according to location of said container component that container said added component (FIG 1, 4A-6; 0039, 0059-65: Hashmi inserts the added component to the target layout(mobile website) according to the location of the nearest parent element. Since information about the marked parts are stored in Storage, the Cron job will periodically poll the external desktop website for updates and update the information about the marked parts in Storage. Information about elements being added, deleted, or modified in the external desktop website will be noted in the ready-made mobile website aka target website. In another embodiment, when a request to a mobile page is made, the Live Mobile Site Generator will compare the information in Storage with the external desktop web page and update the information about the marked parts in Storage. Information about components being added, deleted, or modified in the external desktop website will be noted in the ready-made mobile website aka target website)
Therefore, in conjunction of Davidson with the cited art, the combination overall collectively teaches wherein said component adder comprises a mobile layout adder to insert said added component to said updated mobile layout according to location of said container component that contains said added component
As per dependent claims 36-37, Claims 36-37 recite similar limitations as in Claims 18-19 and are rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 40, Claim 40 recite similar limitations as in Claim 19 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, based on rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale along with the motivation incorporated, Suehiro discloses the searcher comprises a clusterer to cluster components according to their proximity to identified for the added component to be placed in. This is also a form clustering components according to their proximity to said identified container component.
As per dependent claim 41, Claim 41 recites similar limitations as in Claim 40 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 44, Claim 44 recites similar limitations as in Claim 18 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kanevsky fails to disclose performs at least one of: closing gaps in a given component line and deleting an entire component line when said component deleter deletes a component from said mobile layout. Based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale along with the motivation incorporated, Suehiro discloses closing gaps in a given component(block elements) line. When converting the desktop website to a mobile website, components are rearranged to fit vertically in the mobile’s display screen. Since screen width is limited, components are regrouped and laid out so there is one set of components on top of another set of components. There are no gaps or spaces in the output display of the mobile website. See the transformation of Fig 7 to Fig 9 and 10. The 250 elements are stacked on top of the 260 elements. The 260 elements are stacked on top of the 270 elements. (Fig.7,9,10; Page 6 paragraph 89-104)
As per dependent claim 45, Claim 45 recites similar limitations as in Claim 44 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanevsky in further view of Suehiro in further view of Bailor et al in further view of Davidson et al in further view of Schwarzbauer (PGPub 20040111727).
As per dependent claim 42, the cited art fails to specifically disclose said method is performed recursively according to said desktop layout. However, Schwarzbauer discloses parsing the source layout(HTML document) in a recursive way.(FIG 3,4; 0021-0022)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the procedure of converting a desktop website to a mobile website using recursion. Recursion is commonly used to parse out a markup language document. This technique is also used by compilers to break down the source code for syntax errors. Recursion is a common programming tactic that used to divide a problem into sub-problems that are solved and then combining the results. Using recursion to break down the desktop website into simpler smaller components makes it easier to figure out how to get all the web components to fit properly on a smaller display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 21-22, in regards to the 35 USC 112 rejection, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the pending issues in Claims 19, 37, 40-41 that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amendments made to the claims comprises new issues within the claims that were not previously presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claims remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-47 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights