DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 11 November 2025, claim 21 is amended. Claims 1-20, 22 and 26-27 are canceled. Claims 21 and 23-25 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “35 U.S.C. § 103” filed 11 November 2025, have been carefully considered and based on the amendments new reference Goldsmith has been incorporated.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 21 recites “a component resolver to resolve override conflicts between said first and said second extended website components using a negotiation protocol that utilizes variables and decision logic”. These claim limitations appear to be citing intended use in terms of what the negotiation protocols are used for. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite the functionality performed by the claimed method, instead of reciting what the claim elements are used for.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “a component resolver to resolve override conflicts between said first and said second extended website components” should read as -- a component resolver to resolve override conflicts between said first extended website component and said second extended website component -- as it appears to be a typographical error and may cause antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al. (US 2014/0282130 A1, hereinafter “Goldstein”) in view of Sato (US 2011/0126090 A1, hereinafter “Sato”) further in view of Abrahami (US 2013/0219263 A1, hereinafter “Abrahami”), Kheirolomoom et al. (US 2003/0004746 A1, hereinafter “Kheirolomoom”) and Goldsmith (US 2012/0143385 A1, hereinafter “Goldsmith”).
Regarding claim 21, Goldstein teaches
A website building system (WBS), the WBS comprising: (see Goldstein, [0066] “Website building systems may typically provide to a designer, the capability to customize website objects, including particular views, items and item/view combinations… refer to customization of components”).
at least one processor: and a unit running on said processor to (see Goldstein, [0103] “discussions utilizing terms such as "processing," "computing," "calculating," "determining," or the like, refer to the action and/or processes of a computer, computing system, or similar electronic computing device”) handle an override request… (see Goldstein, [0083]-[0084] “the customization records created by a senior designer may override any customization records supplied by the objects in the edited page in order to define specific customizable attributes affecting specific potential customizable components… may create new customization records for particular components that may override any pre-defined or pre-supplied through inheritance or supplied by other objects in the edited page”).
parameterized behavior elements representing style, (see Goldstein, [0072] “Customization may affect attributes of components of specific items or views involved. Customization options may include… display attributes (e.g. font, size and color)”) logic and (see Goldstein, [0072] “Customization may affect attributes of components of specific items or views involved. Customization options may include: should we display a given component (yes/no)” – logic that determines if the components should be displayed or not) body (see Goldstein, [0072] “Customization may affect attributes of components of specific items or views involved. Customization options may include… screen distances (the distance between the dish name and its description for the restaurant example above)… generic parameters which are handed over to the component handling the display”) defining content, operational (see Goldstein, [0066] “operational relationships (e.g. those which define how the content change of one component affects another component) etc”) and visual behavior (see Goldstein, [0066] “those which define the distance between components”) of… the extended website component at runtime (see Goldstein, [0088] “system 100 may be implemented as part as a website building system 250 either on a client 200 or a server 300”; [0090] “system 100 may run using (for example) all the components in a given displayed view or views, thus automatically creating the complete customization dialog”) and to enable interaction with other components on said website according to customizations in attributes of components… (see Goldstein, [0152] “Container-level server assisted dynamic layout may include an actual calculation of layout based on the properties of the collection of components which reside inside a single container, the calculation is not related to a single component but to the interaction between the set of components and the area in which they reside”) resulting from at least an analysis of the relationship of… the extended component and said other components; (see Goldstein, [0066] “the capability to customize website objects, including particular views, items and item/view combinations… many website components have numerous configurable attributes, including those related to the component itself (e.g. background color, font of displayed text), its display format (e.g. a particular date format), its display parameters (such as number of rows and columns) as well as those related to the specific instance (e.g., position and size)… The website building system may also support relationship objects which may also be customized. Such relationship objects represent relationships between website building system components (or other objects)… operational relationships (e.g. those which define how the content change of one component affects another component) etc”).
wherein said override request implements (see Goldstein, [0083]-[0084] “the customization records created by a senior designer may override any customization records supplied by the objects in the edited page in order to define specific customizable attributes affecting specific potential customizable components… may create new customization records for particular components that may override any pre-defined or pre-supplied through inheritance or supplied by other objects in the edited page”) style, (see Goldstein, [0072] “Customization may affect attributes of components of specific items or views involved. Customization options may include… display attributes (e.g. font, size and color)”) behavioral (see Goldstein, [0067] “a given item may be customized, but only when displayed in a given view”) and operational changes (see Goldstein, [0071] “a single customization may potentially affect multiple components”) to at least one parameterized-behavior element; (see Goldstein, [0083]-[0084] “the customization records created by a senior designer may override any customization records supplied by the objects in the edited page in order to define specific customizable attributes affecting specific potential customizable components… may create new customization records for particular components that may override any pre-defined or pre-supplied through inheritance or supplied by other objects in the edited page”).
… according to said override request (see Goldstein, [0083]-[0084] “the customization records created by a senior designer may override any customization records supplied by the objects in the edited page in order to define specific customizable attributes affecting specific potential customizable components… may create new customization records for particular components that may override any pre-defined or pre-supplied through inheritance or supplied by other objects in the edited page”) during both editing preview and running (see Goldstein, [0074] “that the initial construction of templates, views and possibly some pages (from herein known as edited pages) as well as any potential customizations”; [0090] “a selection area for intersecting components or multiple components in more than one view”; [0090] “system 100 may run using (for example) all the components in a given displayed view or views, thus automatically creating the complete customization dialog, obviating the need for junior designer selection and customization module activation”).
… to modify operational (see Goldstein, [0066] “operational relationships (e.g. those which define how the content change of one component affects another component) etc”) and visual behavior (see Goldstein, [0066] “those which define the distance between components”).
Goldstein does not explicitly teach request from a second extended website component to modify a first extended website component, said first extended website component comprising: defining content, operational and visual behavior of said first extended website component at runtime; said website according to pre-defined rules and protocol resolution; said first extended website component; an override data handler to determine if said override request is permissible according to said pre-defined rules and protocol resolution; a component resolver to resolve override conflicts between said first and said second extended website components using a negotiation protocol that utilizes variables and decision logic; a component rendering function to provide rendering instructions for display of said first extended website component during runtime if said override request is permissible; and a runtime behavior driver to modify operational and visual behavior according to said override request at runtime if said override request is permissible.
However, Sato discloses web page components and teaches
request from a second extended website component to modify a first extended website component, said first extended website component comprising: (see Sato, [0011] “identifying a standard parameter in content of a first component for the web page, the standard parameter having a name and a value; identifying a second component of the web page having content that includes the standard parameter name that is also in the content of the first component; updating the content of the second component by changing the standard parameter in the content of the second component to have the standard parameter value of the standard parameter in the content of the first component; and creating the web page from the content of the first component and the updated content of the second component”; [0060] “Upon receipt of a request including a portlet name as a parameter from the portlet content update unit 16, the portlet container 14 requests the portlet 15 to update the contents”).
… said first component… said first component (see Sato, [0011] “identifying a standard parameter in content of a first component for the web page, the standard parameter having a name and a value; identifying a second component of the web page having content that includes the standard parameter name that is also in the content of the first component; updating the content of the second component by changing the standard parameter in the content of the second component to have the standard parameter value of the standard parameter in the content of the first component; and creating the web page from the content of the first component and the updated content of the second component”; [0060] “Upon receipt of a request including a portlet name as a parameter from the portlet content update unit 16, the portlet container 14 requests the portlet 15 to update the contents”).
said first and said second extended website components (see Sato, [0011] “identifying a standard parameter in content of a first component for the web page, the standard parameter having a name and a value; identifying a second component of the web page having content that includes the standard parameter name that is also in the content of the first component; updating the content of the second component by changing the standard parameter in the content of the second component to have the standard parameter value of the standard parameter in the content of the first component; and creating the web page from the content of the first component and the updated content of the second component”; [0060] “Upon receipt of a request including a portlet name as a parameter from the portlet content update unit 16, the portlet container 14 requests the portlet 15 to update the contents”).
a component rendering function to provide rendering instructions for display of said first extended website component (see Sato, [0030] “The functions of the portal screen creation unit 11”; [0024] “Portlets are GUI (graphical user interface) components which can be arranged on a portal screen displayed”; [0029] “The portlet processing unit 10A performs a predetermined process concerning portlets when receiving a request from the terminal 1 to display a portal page and performs a process to create the portal page specified by the request and sends the same to the terminal 1”).
a runtime behavior driver (see Sato, [0025]-[0026] “Each portlet includes two methods including a content display process and a content update process. The content display process is a process to return contents of the portlet specified by the portlet container, to the portlet container. The content update process is a process to update descriptions of the contents of the portlet specified by the portlet container… Each of the terminals 1, portal server 10, and operator terminal 20 includes hardware… The CPU executes a control program stored”; [0011] “a program for enabling computer to execute a method of updating components of a web page”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of requests between components, said first extended website component at runtime, a component rendering function to provide display of first website component and a runtime behavior driver as being disclosed and taught by Sato, in the system taught by Goldstein to yield the predictable results of effectively implementing data linking between components without needing special care from developers of the components (see Sato, [0006] “a component cooperation method, a method of updating components of a web page and a program thereof which are capable of easily implementing data linking between components without needing special care from developers of the components”).
The proposed combination of Goldstein and Sato does not explicitly teach said website according to pre-defined rules and protocol resolution; an override data handler to determine if said override request is permissible according to said pre-defined rules and protocol resolution; a component resolver to resolve override conflicts between said first and said second extended website components using a negotiation protocol that utilizes variables and decision logic; a component rendering function to provide rendering instructions for display of said first extended website component during runtime if said override request is permissible; and to modify operational and visual behavior according to said override request at runtime if said override request is permissible.
However, Abrahami discloses dynamic layout and also teaches
pre-defined rules and (see Abrahami, [0204]-[205] “using an override value for the specific component type of each of the two components being checked (e.g. leave a large space around a picture component as compared to a text component); using an override value for the specific screen being designed and using an override value for the specific container in which the links are being created… the dynamic layout basic parameter values may be defined by the various automatic anchoring rules”) protocol resolution (see Abrahami, [0206] “the automatic anchoring rules may also require a specific order between the components along the primary direction. For the sake of illustration, a particular rule may require that component [a] be above (either disjointed from or intersecting with) component [b]. Such an order condition will be tested in addition to the dynamic layout basic parameter conditions”).
an override data handler to perform overrides (see Abrahami, [02220] “may provide a default setting which allows the designer to specify which action should be taken (for both types of edges) in the case of automatic anchors. This may be specified at the application/web site level, with possible overrides at the application page, container and component level”) according to said to pre-defined rules and (see Abrahami, [0204]-[205] “using an override value for the specific component type of each of the two components being checked (e.g. leave a large space around a picture component as compared to a text component); using an override value for the specific screen being designed and using an override value for the specific container in which the links are being created… the dynamic layout basic parameter values may be defined by the various automatic anchoring rules”) protocol resolution; and (see Abrahami, [0206] “the automatic anchoring rules may also require a specific order between the components along the primary direction. For the sake of illustration, a particular rule may require that component [a] be above (either disjointed from or intersecting with) component [b]. Such an order condition will be tested in addition to the dynamic layout basic parameter conditions”).
a component resolver to resolve override conflicts between components (see Abrahami, [0204]-[0206] “using an override value for the specific component type… the automatic anchoring rules may also require a specific order between the components along the primary direction. For the sake of illustration, a particular rule may require that component [a] be above (either disjointed from or intersecting with) component [b]. Such an order condition will be tested in addition to the dynamic layout basic parameter conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of overrides, rules and protocols, override conflicts, semantic composite and metadata as being disclosed and taught by Abrahami, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Goldstein and Sato to yield the predictable results of improving the website creation and design process (see Abrahami, [0024] “Therefore a server based system may be used to integrate dynamic layout rules across single and multiple clients sharing the same server enabling the efficient moving and resizing of components where necessary and thus improving the website creation and design process”).
The proposed combination of Goldstein, Sato and Abrahami does not explicitly teach to determine if said override request is permissible; using a negotiation protocol that utilizes variables and decision logic; during runtime if said override request is permissible; to modify operational and visual behavior according to said override request at runtime if said override request is permissible.
However, Kheirolomoom discloses overridable attributes and teaches
to determine if said override request is permissible (see Kheirolomoom, [0187] “This includes the "overridable" attribute which determines whether the value provided can be provided with a different value at run time via a run time parameter passing mechanism”).
runtime if said override request is permissible; and (see Kheirolomoom, [0187] “This includes the "overridable" attribute which determines whether the value provided can be provided with a different value at run time via a run time parameter passing mechanism”).
according to said override request at runtime if said override request is permissible (see Kheirolomoom, [0187] “This includes the "overridable" attribute which determines whether the value provided can be provided with a different value at run time via a run time parameter passing mechanism”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of attributes determining if values in the parameters can be overridden as being disclosed and taught by Kheirolomoom, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Goldstein, Sato and Abrahami to yield the predictable results of effectively applying Web services technologies to allow businesses to automate processes with delivering valued business services by simplifying application building and service delivery processes (see Kheirolomoom, [0005] “The invention is a scenario-based design, deployment, and management environment that uses state-of-the- art in Internet and Web services technologies to allow businesses to automate the processes associated with delivering valued business services online and fully exploit the benefits and efficiencies offered by successful online strategies. The invention enables rapid, visual assembly of dynamic, scalable, scenario-driven interactions called NetScenarios. By dramatically simplifying application building and service delivery processes, the invention transforms online service assembly and deployment from a technological hurdle to a business imperative”).
The proposed combination of Goldstein, Sato, Abrahami and Kheirolomoom does not explicitly teach resolve conflict using a negotiation protocol that utilizes variables and decision logic.
However, Goldsmith discloses managing events and also teaches
conflict resolution using a negotiation protocol that utilizes variables and decision logic; (see Goldsmith, [0034] “determine (negotiate) admissible corrective actions, and reallocate generation or load resources through collective decision protocols. The performance indices can be conditioned on system characteristics, such as amount and distribution of dispatchable and non-dispatchable power sources, the state of power storage devices, individual and aggregate load and source density functions, local decision algorithms, and information network characteristics, such as communication latency”; [0039] “If the capacity risk is unacceptable to the load cohort, given its composition of critical and elective loads for each load agent, an interactive negotiation protocol can be invoked. The conflict resolution protocols are complex and depend on policies for generation limits, critical load maintenance requirements, and many other operational and service related considerations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the functionality of negotiation protocol can be overridden as being disclosed and taught by Goldsmith, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Goldstein, Sato, Abrahami and Kheirolomoom to yield the predictable results of efficiently performing predictions (see Kheirolomoom, [0034] “the loads and sources output and request time-varying amounts of electric power. Power sources that generate varying amounts of power, interacting with independently-determined variable loads, result in a stochastic power flow process, in which both load and generation elements are uncertain and must be adjusted concomitantly to regulate voltage and power flow… Intelligent agents can be configured to collectively perform stochastic prediction and control actions under various microgrid configurations using interactive coordination protocols that adjust the balance of generation and load in relatively small increments”).
Regarding claim 23, the proposed combination of Goldstein, Sato, Abrahami, Kheirolomoom and Goldsmith teaches
wherein said first extended website component is at least one of (see Goldstein, [0005] “Components may have content, e.g. text for text component, an image for image component etc. They also have additional attributes, including in particular display attributes (e.g. color, frames) and layout attributes (size and position)…. Components may be content-less such as a star-shape which does not have any internal content (through it has color, size, position and some other attributes) or may have internal content, such as a text paragraph component, whose internal content includes the displayed text, as well as font, formatting and layout information”; [0096] “Page [A] includes components [a], [b], [c] and [d]”; see Sato, [0011] “identifying a standard parameter in content of a first component for the web page, the standard parameter having a name and a value; identifying a second component of the web page having content that includes the standard parameter name that is also in the content of the first component; updating the content of the second component by changing the standard parameter in the content of the second component to have the standard parameter value of the standard parameter in the content of the first component; and creating the web page from the content of the first component and the updated content of the second component”; [0060] “Upon receipt of a request including a portlet name as a parameter from the portlet content update unit 16, the portlet container 14 requests the portlet 15 to update the contents”) a semantic composite (see Abrahami, [0150] “container [a] may contain components [b] and [c]”). The motivation for the proposed combination is maintained.
Regarding claim 24, the proposed combination of Goldstein, Sato, Abrahami, Kheirolomoom and Goldsmith teaches
further comprising a fixed area containing elements of (see Goldstein, [0090] “a single selection, a multiple selection, a selection area for intersecting components or multiple components in more than one view”) said first extended website component (see Goldstein, [0005] “Components may have content, e.g. text for text component, an image for image component etc. They also have additional attributes, including in particular display attributes (e.g. color, frames) and layout attributes (size and position)…. Components may be content-less such as a star-shape which does not have any internal content (through it has color, size, position and some other attributes) or may have internal content, such as a text paragraph component, whose internal content includes the displayed text, as well as font, formatting and layout information”; [0096] “Page [A] includes components [a], [b], [c] and [d]”; see Sato, [0011] “identifying a standard parameter in content of a first component for the web page, the standard parameter having a name and a value; identifying a second component of the web page having content that includes the standard parameter name that is also in the content of the first component; updating the content of the second component by changing the standard parameter in the content of the second component to have the standard parameter value of the standard parameter in the content of the first component; and creating the web page from the content of the first component and the updated content of the second component”; [0060] “Upon receipt of a request including a portlet name as a parameter from the portlet content update unit 16, the portlet container 14 requests the portlet 15 to update the contents”) that cannot be overridden (see Kheirolomoom, [0167] “the custom and system-provisioned parameters can be given particular values that are stored as a record”; [0190] “if the provisioning parameter does not have the "overridable" attribute then the attempt to override the provisioning parameter is not allowed”). The motivation for the proposed combination is maintained.
Regarding claim 25, the proposed combination of Goldstein, Sato, Abrahami, Kheirolomoom and Goldsmith teaches
further comprising metadata about said first extended website component, wherein said metadata is at least one of: (see Abrahami, [0136] “Data repository 80 may store the pages and templates 65 pertinent to website 60, together with component information”; see Sato, [0011] “identifying a standard parameter in content of a first component for the web page, the standard parameter having a name and a value; identifying a second component of the web page having content that includes the standard parameter name that is also in the content of the first component; updating the content of the second component by changing the standard parameter in the content of the second component to have the standard parameter value of the standard parameter in the content of the first component; and creating the web page from the content of the first component and the updated content of the second component”; [0060] “Upon receipt of a request including a portlet name as a parameter from the portlet content update unit 16, the portlet container 14 requests the portlet 15 to update the contents”) component name, (see Goldstein, [0089] “may create View 1 at the design stage containing 4 components, comp 1, comp 2, comp 3 and comp 4”).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAISHALI SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-8532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30 AM to 4:00 PM).
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, AJAY BHATIA can be reached at (571)272-3906. 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.
/VAISHALI SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156