DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), filed on 1/8/2026 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-36 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
Issue 1: The applicant argues (on page 10) with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended limitations overcome the current rejection because “the Office Action attempts to equate the claimed "application," not with the so-called "widget application" (i.e., "webtop" system), but rather with an individual one of the widgets.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Examiner’s citation and explanation in the rejection section corresponding to the amended limitations.
Specifically, as cited and explained in the rejection, the user’s requesting to view the webtop is in fact requesting for a widget application (i.e., a set of widget(s)) displayed on the webtop per the user representation (see [0137], “when a user requests to view the webtop, user preferences associated with their account are selected. As the webtop processes through the user preferences, if a user preference represents a widget, a new widget is instantiated and given the settings associated with the user preference.” See [0136], “The web-based window system, or webtop, may display the windows, or widgets, based on user preferences”. Here, it is not the webtop application itself but instead a set of widget(s) that is mapped to the claimed “application,” wherein such newly instantiated widget(s) are provided to the interface device. The level of functionality of the set of widgets (i.e., widget application) are determined based on the user setting, see above citation “widget…given the settings associated with the user preference”, out of a plurality of functionality such as different combinations of widget types/sizes that can be displayed based on user settings.
Also see [0139]. “the webtop may be configured for an individual user based on one or more feed formatted configuration files. For example, a single XML file may include user profile information, widget size and location, and the like. The same file, or a different file may then provide a list of subscribed feeds to populate the user's feed viewer. Similar requests may be made or the data included in a single file for quicklinks, wikis, and the like”.
It is to be noted that the claimed “application” is not limited to any specific type, nor is the claimed “application” required to be standalone. Therefore any type of application such as a set of widgets read on the claimed “application”.
Issue 2: The applicant argues (on pages 11-13) that Nicholas fails to teach “receiv[es] ... a request for an application" and "send[s], to [the] interface device ... , the application” and “determining…a level of functionality of…”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Examiner’s response to Issue 1 above regarding receiving a request for an application and sending to the interface device the application, and a level of functionality of a plurality of functionality.
Regarding the newly amended last limitation (“control…”, see Examiner’s response in the corresponding rejection section below).
Issue 3: The applicant argues (on page 13) with respect to dependent claims 34 that “Nicholas merely indicating a type of a widget, or merely displaying a widget, is not "determin[ing] ... a level of functionality of [an] application of a plurality of levels of functionality," where "the level of functionality determines which information is displayed on the operation of the application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the first part, see Examiner’s response to the independent claim above. For “the level of functionality determines which information is displayed on the operation of the application”, since the level of functionality is displaying a specific combination of wizard type/size per the user’s setting, it determines which information is displayed on the operation of the wizard application.
Issue 4: The applicant argues (on page 14) with respect to dependent claims 35 that Nicholas fails to teach “the plurality of levels of functionality are associated with levels of quality of service” because “the "plurality of levels of functionality" recited in claims 1 and 3 5 are "levels of functionality" associated with "an application”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the wizard application (i.e. the webtop in wizard presentation mode as explained above and in the rejection) is the application, wherein a higher number of displayed wizard types as one of the levels of functionality can be considered as a higher quality of service for the wizard application.
Issue 5: The applicant argues (on pages 14-15) with respect to dependent claims 36 that Nicholas fails to teach “a frequency of updating information in the application" because “The Office does not address the recitation in claim 36 of "a frequency of updating information in the application," focusing instead solely on the recitation of "an application version”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claimed limitation does not require both, but only one of the above. Specifically, the claim recites in a alternately way “determines one or more of 1) a frequency of updating information in the application or 2) an application version”. As recited in the rection, the different combination of a set of widget(s) including type and size can be considered a version of the set of widgets (i.e., the widget application), which is determined by the level of the functionality as presented by the user setting. It is to be noted the claim does not require a specific type of “determine”.
Regarding the applicant’s further arguments regarding “a level of functionality of a plurality of functionality”, see Examiner’s response above.
(A) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Issue: The applicant’s argument is based on his arguments for the 102 rejections.
See Examiner’s response above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
4. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-19, 21, 23-27, 29, 31-36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Nicholas et al (US 2007/0043766).
As to claim 1, Nicholas discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a server device, a request for an application ([0137], “In one embodiment, one or more tables may store user preferences. A user preference table may be dedicated to widget settings, or widget settings may be contained in a general user preferences table. If widget settings are stored in a general user preferences table, the table may include a column indicating the type of user preference, for example a type might be widget settings. In one embodiment, when a user requests to view the webtop, user preferences associated with their account are selected. As the webtop processes through the user preferences, if a user preference represents a widget, a new widget is instantiated and given the settings associated with the user preference”. See also [0136], “The web-based window system, or webtop, may display the windows, or widgets, based on user preferences.” Here, the webtop to be instantiated with widget presentation is an instance of the webtop application requested for, and such instantiated widget application to be “given the settings associated with the user preference” indicates a level of functionality of the widget application. Also see [0139]. “the webtop may be configured for an individual user based on one or more feed formatted configuration files. For example, a single XML file may include user profile information, widget size and location, and the like. The same file, or a different file may then provide a list of subscribed feeds to populate the user's feed viewer. Similar requests may be made or the data included in a single file for quicklinks, wikis, and the like”. Here, the widget application (i.e. a set of widget(s)) is mapped to the claimed “application,” wherein such newly instantiated widget(s) are provided to the interface device. The service provider providing the webtop service including the set of widgets is a server device, e.g., see Figure 2);
determining that the request is associated with an account authorized to access the application (see citation above in rejection to limitation 1, wherein “if a user preference represents a widget, a new widget is instantiated and given the settings associated with the user preference” indicates determining that the webtop request is associated with the user account authorized by the user to access the widget, by checking whether the user preference represents the widget. It is to be noted that the claimed “authorized to” is not limited to any specific type of authorization, nor does the limitation require a specific criterion for authorization or a specific entity that authorizes. Examiner therefore interprets any type of authorization by any entity. See also paragraphs [0099[-[0100]); and
based on the request, sending, to an interface device associated with the account and located at a premises (figure 2, the location where the user and the desktop computer and its display device are located is a premise, see also [0169], “home computer”) the application and a setting associated with the account (see citation in rejection to limitation 1 above, e.g., ([0137], “if a user preference represents a widget, a new widget is instantiated and given the settings associated with the user preference”, indicates sending to the web browser (interface device) the widget(s), and a setting associated with the user account. It is to be noted that the claim limitation does not require a specific data format for the application or the setting or their relationship, therefore Examiner interprets as any data format and relationship such as contained in a single file, different files, etc. in any type(s) of data format. Also see [0139], “the webtop may be configured for an individual user based on one or more feed formatted configuration files. For example, a single XML file may include user profile information, widget size and location, and the like. The same file, or a different file may then provide a list of subscribed feeds to populate the user's feed viewer. Similar requests may be made or the data included in a single file for quicklinks, wikis, and the like”), and
wherein the interface device is configured to:
determine, based on the setting associated with the account, a level of functionality of the application of a plurality of levels of functionality available during operation of the application (see citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0137], “if a user preference represents a widget, a new widget is instantiated and given the settings associated with the user preference”; [0138], “ For example, a user setting may indicate that a widget is a feed reader widget that is currently maximized”, wherein the web browser’s displaying “a feed reader widget” according to the user setting given to the widget indicates determine by the web browser the widget and its settings (a level of functionality of the widget application) of a plurality of levels of functionality available during operation of the application, wherein the plurality of levels of functionality are different combinations of widgets that can be displayed along with respective settings, e.g., [0136], “The web-based window system, or webtop, may display the windows, or widgets, based on user preferences. A webtop is shown including widgets including alert notification widget 1914, alert widget 1916, and feed reader widget 1902. Other widgets, such as wiki, quicklink, or media player, fewer or no widgets may also be displayed on the webtop.” It is to be noted that the claim does not limit to a specific type of determinization, therefore Examiner interprets as any type of determination, including, for example, determining by reading the settings given to the widget previously in order to display the widget accordingly);
execute, according to the determined level of functionality, the application on the interface device (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation, displaying the widget on the web browser according to the user settings given to the widget); and
control, via the application, operation of at least one premises devices located at the premises and configured to communicate with the interface device at the premises (See Figure 2, and citation in rejection to the preceding limitations, wherein the web browser as the interface device, via the widget(s) application, controls an operation of the display monitor for displaying respective information, wherein the display monitor is a premises device located at the premises and configured to communicate with the web browser by receiving instructions/controls from the web browser’s rendering engine, see figure 1, “home-based business network”; [0040], last five lines, “the user node include networked appliances such as televisions, refrigerators, etc.”. It is to be noted that the claimed “communicate” does not require a two-way communication).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 25, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Nicholas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the request comprises receiving the request from one or more of the interface device or a user device (Nicholas, [0137], “when a user requests to view the webtop” indicating the request is from the web browser which is the interface device).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 26, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Nicholas discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the user device is located external to the premises ([0040], “cell phone”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 27, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 5, Nicholas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the account is associated with a service tier, and wherein one or more of a run mode or a function of the application is enabled for the interface device based on the service tier (see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein the user account is associated with preferred widget(s) which is equivalent to a service tier, and the preferred widget is a function of the widget application enabled for the web browser based on the user’s widget preference”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 21, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 29, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 7, Nicholas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the application comprises at least one of an executable file, a widget program, a module, or a script (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0137], “widget”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 23, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 31, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Nicholas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the request associated with the application comprises receiving a request for a service associated with the application (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0137], request for a webtop, wherein the request for webtop is shown to include widgets, see [0136], “The web-based window system, or webtop, may display the windows, or widgets, based on user preferences. A webtop is shown including widgets including alert notification widget 1914, alert widget 1916, and feed reader widget 1902.”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 24, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 32, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 33, Nicholas discloses the claimed invention substantially including wherein the setting is stored in a configuration file sent to the interface device in response to the request, and wherein the interface device does not have permission to edit the setting (see citation in rejection to limitation 1 above, e.g., ([0137], “if a user preference represents a widget, a new widget is instantiated and given the settings associated with the user preference”, wherein the widget incorporating the settings is also a configuration file which cannot be edited by the web browser. See also [0139], “In one embodiment, the webtop may be configured for an individual user based on one or more feed formatted configuration files. For example, a single XML file may include user profile information, widget size and location, and the like. The same file, or a different file may then provide a list of subscribed feeds to populate the user's feed viewer. Similar requests may be made or the data included in a single file for quicklinks, wikis, and the like.”).
AS to claim 34, Nicholas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the level of functionality determines which information is displayed on the operation of the application ([0138], “ For example, a user setting may indicate that a widget is a feed reader widget that is currently maximized”, wherein displaying “a feed reader widget that is currently maximized” is a level of functionality of the widget application of a plurality of levels of functionality available during operation of the application, wherein the plurality of levels of functionality include, e.g., [0136], “The web-based window system, or webtop, may display the windows, or widgets, based on user preferences. A webtop is shown including widgets including alert notification widget 1914, alert widget 1916, and feed reader widget 1902. Other widgets, such as wiki, quicklink, or media player, fewer or no widgets may also be displayed on the webtop).
As to claim 35, Nicholas discloses the claimed invention as discussed in claim 1, including wherein the plurality of levels of functionality are associated with levels of quality of service (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0138], “ For example, a user setting may indicate that a widget is a feed reader widget that is currently maximized”; [0136], “The web-based window system, or webtop, may display the windows, or widgets, based on user preferences. A webtop is shown including widgets including alert notification widget 1914, alert widget 1916, and feed reader widget 1902. Other widgets, such as wiki, quicklink, or media player, fewer or no widgets may also be displayed on the webtop”, wherein more widgets on display can be considered a higher level of quality of service).
As to claim 36, Nicholas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the level of functionality determines one or more of a frequency of updating information in the application or an application version ([0139], “widget size” indicates a version of the widget application. It is to be noted that the claim recites in a alternately way “determines one or more of 1) a frequency of updating information in the application or 2) an application version”. Here, a different combination of a set of widget(s) including type and size can be considered a version of the set of widgets (i.e., the widget application), which is determined by the level of the functionality as presented by the user setting. It is to be noted the claim does not require a specific type of “determine”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 4, 12, 20 and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nicholas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams et al (US 2008/0097871).
As to claim 4, Nicholas discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose receiving, by the server device, an application package, wherein the application package comprises the application and configuration information association with the application. Williams discloses a concept for a server device to receive an application package comprising the application and configuration information associated with the application (claim 14).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Nicholas with Williams. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide wizard application corresponding to the configuration (Williams, claim 14).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 28, see similar rejection to claim 4.
7. Claims 6, 14, 22 and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nicholas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al (US 2004/0268298).
As to claim 6, Nicholas discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including wherein the server device is configured, based on information associated with the application and received by the server device, to indicate a default configuration setting associated with the application (Nicholas, see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0137]; [0138], “For example, a user setting may indicate that a widget is a feed reader widget that is currently maximized”; [0139], “wizard size”; [0018], “a resize input”, wherein the initial wizard size based on the user setting is considered a default configuration setting), but does not expressly disclose such a database of information is a manifest file. Miller discloses a concept of configuration specified in a manifest file ([0051]; [0163]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Nicholas with Miller. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide configuration instructions (Miller, [0051]; [0163]).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 22, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 30, see similar rejection to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458