DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed 30 July 2025.
Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15–17, and 19–25 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15–17, and 19–25 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 July 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2025 have been fully considered; some arguments are persuasive, while others are not.
Regarding the rejections under § 112, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive, and therefore the rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amendments raise further issues under § 112; see the new rejections below.
Regarding the rejections under § 103, Applicant argues in substance that Hanni and Hickson are not combinable because Hanni uses a URL polling technique for passing messages, and Hickson uses the window.postMessage() JavaScript technique (remarks, pp. 23–26). However, these two techniques are interchangeable, as recognized by the prior art. For example, Chandi et al. (US 2015/0248723 A1) teaches communicating cross-domain between frames or windows using either the JavaScript or URL polling technique, depending on whether the target browser environment supports each technique (Chandi, ¶¶ 36–38).
Claim Rejections—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15–17, and 19–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, these claims recite: causing the web browser to, in response to the user interacting with the one or more user interface elements, use the one or more functions to send a post message to the iFrame through the receiver script; wherein a query created using the post message is sent to the second domain and automatically navigate to the third webpage within a same display that had been displaying the first webpage, replacing the first webpage in the display;
The phrase “wherein a query created using the post message is sent to the second domain and automatically navigate to the third webpage” is ungrammatical. For the purposes of examination, this phrase is interpreted as “wherein a query created using the post message is sent to the second domain and [the browser is caused to] automatically navigate to the third webpage”.
Claims 2–7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15–17, and 19–25 depend from claim 1 or 11, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections—35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–7, 9, 11–13, 15–17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanni et al. (US 8,689,099 B1) [hereinafter Hanni] in view of Hickson (US 2007/0113237 A1), Stocker (US 2011/0161201 A1), and Klinger et al.1 (US 2012/0116897 A1) [hereinafter Klinger].
Regarding independent claim 1, Hanni discloses [a] method of modifying a first webpage from a first domain to enable cross-domain two-way communication, comprising: causing a web browser to load, as part of the first webpage, dynamic content comprising one or more user interface elements; A client uses a browser to render network pages [web pages] (Hanni, col. 3 ll. 55–65). The network page may comprise components [buttons, user interface elements] and a visible iframe containing, e.g. a map [user interface element] (Hanni, col. 5 l. 65 to col. 6 l. 15, FIG. 2). causing the web browser to embed an iFrame into the first webpage that contains a second webpage from a second domain different from the first domain, and wherein the one or more user interface elements each share a function with user interface elements of a third webpage existing as a separate page from the first webpage, also from the second domain, the user interface elements of the third webpage being native to the third webpage rather than being embedded in any iFrame created by the third webpage; A network page [first webpage] includes a network page frame, e.g. an iframe, having a page of a different domain [third webpage] (Hanni, col. 4 ll. 15–30). The network page may have UI elements for interacting with the content on the page displayed in the iframe, e.g. a form field and button for entering a ZIP code for a map (Hanni, col. 5 l. 65 to col. 6 l. 15). One or more messenger iframes [second webpage] are generated in the web page (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 20–35). The messenger iframes execute in the same domain as the network page frame [third webpage] to allow cross-domain communication (Hanni, col. 5 ll. 40–55). The messenger frames may be non-visible (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 20–30). causing the web browser to load a script file using the iFrame, such that a script in the script file operates within the web browser, during the web browser’s display of the first webpage; The messenger iframes contain frame communication code (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 25–35) which may be JavaScript code (Hanni, col. 4 ll. 30–40). The frame communication code may be included in either the parent page [first domain], the network page frame [second domain] or both, and the communication may or may not be symmetrical [therefore the scripts may not be the same on both pages] (Hanni, col. 5 ll. 25–60). […] causing the web browser to, in response to the user interacting with the one or more user interface elements, use the one or more functions to send a post message to the […]; A user may interact with the UI elements, e.g. a form field and button, which causes a message to be sent to a different domain using the frame communication code and messenger frame(s) (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 15–35). subsequent to receipt of the post message by server-side code on the second domain, updating a state of the user interface elements of the third webpage to match a changed state of the one or more user interface elements of the first webpage; A UI element, e.g. the map, is updated based on the cross-domain messages sent using the frame communication code (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 15–35). […]
Hanni teaches using inline frames for cross-domain communication, as well as the use of JavaScript (Hanni, col. 3 ll. 20–30) but does not expressly teach using the Window.postMessage() and Window.addEventListener() methods. However, Hickson teaches: subsequent to the embedding of the iFrame and loading the script file, causing the web browser to bind one or more functions defined by the script to the one or more user interface elements, the one or more functions including the web browser’s Window.postMessage() functionality; A first document of a first domain sends information to a second document in a second domain using the Window.postMessage() method of ECMAScript/JavaScript (Hickson, ¶¶ 71–77, 90). One of the documents may be in an iframe (Hickson, ¶ 59). The script may define event listeners (“binding” in the sense used by Applicant, see specification ¶¶ 37–39) (Hickson, ¶¶ 79–81). [causing the web browser to, in response to the user interacting with the one or more user interface elements, use the one or more functions to send a post message to the [iFrame through the receiver script]; A script in the first document sends the message to the second document using postMessage() (Hickson, ¶ 71). loading a receiver script within the iFrame using the second webpage, such that the receiver script operates within the iFrame; A message is received by an event listener [receiver script] in the second document (Hickson, ¶ 21). [causing the web browser to receive a message from a server at the second domain] using the web browser’s Window.addEventListener() functionality [indicating that a state of the one or more user interface elements of the third webpage has been further changed through a user interaction on the third webpage; and] The second document receives the message from the first document using the addEventListener() method (Hickson, ¶¶ 79, 91).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hickson with those of Hanni. Doing so would have been a matter of substituting one known element (passing messages via URL) for another (passing messages via ECMAScript/JavaScript methods) to produce a predictable result (a cross-domain user interface, using ECMAScript/JavaScript to pass messages across domains).
Hanni/Hickson teaches using inline frames to send messages between pages having different domains, but does not expressly teach synchronizing bidirectionally. However, Stocker teaches: causing the script to receive a message from the server-side code on a server at the second domain […] indicating that a state of the one or more user interface elements of the third webpage has been further changed through a user interaction on the third webpage; and A DHSC (dynamic hosted shopping cart) is updated in response to a buyer [user] adding, deleting, or updating items [interacting] by e.g., HTTP or JSON requests [messages] to a remote server (Stocker, ¶¶ 45–47). The shopping cart is persisted across different sites in different domains (Stocker, ¶¶ 18, 45, 47, 48). in response to the received message, and subsequent to the user navigating back to the first webpage within the display, updating the one or more user interface elements of the first webpage to match the further changed state of the user interface elements of the third webpage. The status of the shopping cart is dynamically updated and displayed to the buyer using the widget, which is displayed on each of the different sites (Stocker, ¶ 43).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stocker with those of Hanni/Hickson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the buyer/user to shop across different websites in different domains in a more convenient way (Stocker, ¶ 5).
Hanni/Hickson/Stocker teaches sending a post message to another domain, but does not expressly teach automatically navigating to the third webpage. However, Klinger teaches: wherein a query created using the post message is sent to the second domain and automatically navigate to the third webpage within a same display that had been displaying the first webpage, replacing the first webpage in the display A user can add items to a cart within an advertisement [a query], and select a “view cart” button [user interface element] to display the shopping cart [third webpage]; the cart is displayed by a pop-up or by navigating to a new page [“replacing the first webpage”] (Klinger, ¶ 87).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Klinger with those of Hanni/Hickson/Stocker. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make it easier for the user to review the cart and/or check out (Klinger, ¶ 87).
Regarding dependent claim 2, the rejection of parent claim 1 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: wherein the one or more user interface elements have an identical appearance to the user interface elements of the third webpage. The iframe [containing a page from a second domain] may be visually indistinguishable from the parent page (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 1–15).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the rejection of parent claim 2 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: wherein the third webpage from the second domain is an online shopping cart page showing items that have been added to a cart. The user may click a “View Cart” button to open a new web page allowing the user to review the items in the cart, check out, etc. (Klinger, ¶ 88).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the rejection of parent claim 1 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: wherein the post message sent to the second domain is structured so that the server at the second domain cannot determine that it was sent from within a webpage provided by the first domain. The messenger frame delivers the message to the second domain [therefore the message is not sent from the first domain] (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 25–35). The restrictions on cross-domain communications are avoided (Hanni, col. 1 l. 50 to col. 2 l. 5).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the rejection of parent claim 1 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: causing the web browser to, when subsequently loading the first webpage, update the one or more user interface elements to reflect the further changed state. The user may add, delete, or update quantities of items, and the shopping cart widget is updated accordingly (Stocker, ¶¶ 40, 43–44). The update would also be visible upon reloading a page, as was well-known in the art (Stocker, ¶ 5).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the rejection of parent claim 5 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: wherein the third webpage comprises an online shopping cart, and wherein the further changed state is an addition or removal of one or more items to or from the online shopping cart, and wherein a single click or tap on a cart icon in the second webpage causes a checkout to be triggered on the third webpage and for the online shopping cart to be available to the user without a second click or tap. The user may add items to the shopping cart, which updates the shopping cart widget (Stocker, ¶¶ 40, 43–44). A “view cart” button [cart icon] can be selected, causing a shopping cart to be displayed to the user, which can be used to check out (Klinger, ¶ 87).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the rejection of parent claim 5 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: causing a web browser to, when subsequently loading the third webpage, update the third webpage to reflect the changed state. The cart is updated, e.g. based on a change to a quantity of an item (Stocker, ¶ 43).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the rejection of parent claim 1 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: wherein the iFrame is embedded into the first webpage and is not visible to the user. The messenger iframe is not visible on the web page (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 20–35).
Regarding independent claim 11, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 1, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons. Hanni further discloses one or more processors and non-transitory memory in cols. 9 and 10, and FIGs. 5 and 6.
Regarding dependent claim 12, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 2, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 13, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 3, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 15, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 5, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 16, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 6, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 17, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 7, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 19, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 9, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 21, the rejection of parent claim 1 is incorporated and Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger further teaches: wherein the causing the web browser to embed an iFrame into the first webpage comprises executing commands to dynamically generate an iFrame element and insert it into the first webpage after the first webpage has loaded and as part of the dynamic content. The message frames [inline frames, iframes] may be static or may be generated dynamically (Hanni, col. 5 ll. 25–40). The pages may use JavaScript for performing tasks (Hanni, col. 4 ll. 30–40).
Regarding dependent claim 23, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 21, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanni, Hickson, Stocker, and Klinger, further in view of Sponheim et al. (US 7,058,944 B1) [hereinafter Sponheim].
Regarding dependent claim 10, the rejection of parent claim 1 is incorporated. Hanni teaches hiding an inline frame by sizing it to zero pixels (Hanni, col. 6 ll. 20–35) but does not expressly teach a dimension of one pixel. However, Sponheim teaches: wherein the iFrame is hidden among other elements of the first webpage as a result of the iFrame having a size with a dimension of only one pixel or a location at a bottom of the first webpage. An iframe is made substantially invisible to a user by creating it with a size of a single pixel (Sponheim, col. 12 ll. 45–50).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sponheim with those of Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger. Doing so would have been a matter of substituting one known element (a hidden iframe of 0 pixels) for another (a hidden iframe of 1 pixel) to produce a predictable result (a cross-domain user interface having a message passing frame that is hidden by being very small instead of invisible).
Regarding dependent claim 20, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 10, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanni, Hickson, Stocker, and Klinger, further in view of Chandi et al. (US 2015/0248723 A1) [hereinafter Chandi].
Regarding dependent claim 22, the rejection of parent claim 1 is incorporated. Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger teaches using the postMessage function for cross-domain communication, but does not expressly teach verifying the origin domain. However, Chandi teaches: wherein, upon receipt of the post message, an origin domain of the post message is verified as an expected origin domain before updating the state of the user interface elements of the third webpage to match the changed state of the one or more user interface elements of the first webpage. The postMessage technique is used to communicate across domains between two different browser windows; when a message is received by the target window, the domain is checked to ensure the message is from an expected source [origin] domain. If the message is not from an expected domain, it is discarded; if it is from an expected domain, the message is passed to the window and e.g. used to alter the target window (Chandi, ¶ 35).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chandi with those of Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger. One would have been motivated to do so to enhance the security of the cross-domain communication (Chandi, ¶ 35).
Regarding dependent claim 24, this claim recites limitations similar to those of claim 22, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanni, Hickson, Stocker, and Klinger, further in view of Sacks et al. (US 2013/0055070 A1) [hereinafter Sacks].
Regarding dependent claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger teaches web pages with a shopping cart (e.g., Klinger, ¶ 16) but does not expressly teach a poll. However, Sacks teaches: wherein the changed state indicates a user selection of a polling option in an interactive poll. A web page displays a poll from a third party; the display of the results of the poll is updated in response to the server receiving a user’s vote [selection] via a button (Sacks, ¶¶ 27–28).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hanni/Hickson/Stocker/Klinger with those of Sacks. Doing so would have been a matter of simple substitution of one known element [the map of Hanni, or the shopping cart of Klinger] with another element [the poll of Sacks] to produce a predictable result [a poll that is updated using an inline frame to facilitate cross-domain communication].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Schallhorn whose telephone number is 571-270-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tamara Kyle can be reached on 571-272-4241. 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 the USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Tyler Schallhorn/Examiner, Art Unit 2144
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144
1 Cited in the action mailed 11 June 2021.