DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is FINAL and is in response to the claims filed July 20, 2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 8,14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are currently amended. Claim 9 has been cancelled and claim 21 is newly presented.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification does not include paragraph numbers but uses page numbers and line numbers. Any reference to Applicant’s disclosure will use the paragraph numbers from the pre-grant publication (U.S. 2023/0074468).
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited art have been fully considered. Applicant first argues that the containers are not taught by Decker. See Remarks 10-11. Decker explicitly teaches loading the webpage from the cache as needed, based on the target page. “Each page 306 and its corresponding tab 310 move together as a unit as array 305 is scrolled. (As new pages become visible, they can be loaded from the cache of browser application 145 or dynamically reloaded from their original sources).” Therefore, the respective content to each tab can be loaded from the cache itself. This includes the “need” of loading from the cache as the pages become visible. See Decker para. [0075]. If Applicant desires a narrower reading of “containers”, Applicant needs to further clarify their structure and functionality.
Furthermore, regarding independent claim 1, Applicant next argues that the container is not taught by Timmons as claimed. Examiner first notes that the rejection is one of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Herein, Examiner again notes that Applicant has provided no specific structure to the claimed container and Examiner is clear that the interpretation is based around the cache of Decker. Examiner also notes the explicit teachings of Decker, as discussed above regarding claim 17.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. See Remarks 15. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant presents a helpful “subway car” analogy, and argues that the content type tagged frame routing into Decker’s positional array model would require dismantling Decker’s positional caching architecture. See Remarks 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Examiner is not modifying the structure of the cache of Decker, but merely what the cache can be pointing to. Having the cache point to a particular type does not fundamentally alter the functionality of the cache. It just presents an additional way for the pages to be loaded from said cache.
Finally, Applicant has amended claim 20 and also presents similar container-based arguments as discussed above when addressing independent claim 1. The arguments are not persuasive for at least the same reasons. The clarifications of the scrolling vs. switching are still taught by Weber, as detailed in the rejection below. See Remarks 18; see also Weber para. [0029].
Examiner notes that amendments clarifying the container structure would be helpful in strengthening Applicant’s arguments. The type of page, as amended into claim 1 and presented in claim 21, are very broad and subject to an equally broad, yet reasonable interpretation. Applicant’s disclosure does not define any of these terms, which greatly expands their scope and breadth.
It is for at least these reasons, and the reasons cited below, that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites a list of page types that are also incorporated into claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0205244; hereinafter “Decker”).and further in view of Timmons (U.S. Publication No. 2001/0044810).
As per claim 1, Decker teaches a method comprising:
acquiring page data after receiving an access request for a target page, the page data including data corresponding to a plurality of tab pages, and the plurality of tab pages including a first tab page and at least one second tab page (See Decker Fig. 2 and para. [0068]: multiple tabs representing different webpages, with indicators for the active tab versus other open tabs), the first tab page including one or more links to one or more first application services, a respective link of the one or more links being used to jump to render a render page of a first application service of the one or more first application services, a second tab page of the at least one second tab page corresponds to a render page of a second application service, the plurality of tab pages corresponding to a variety of different page types (See Decker Figs. 2, 3, and paras. [0079-80]: users can select hyperlinks within browser windows and this action can create a new tab and page based on the linked content);
starting a page container corresponding to a type of the second tab page in response to determining that a page content corresponding to the render page of the second application service needs to be loaded… and the type of the second tab page comprising one of: a light application page, a native page, a hybrid application page, or a fifth-generation hypertext markup language (HTML5) page (See Decker paras. [0088] and [0166]: different application and content types for pages, including default pages); loading the page content through the page container corresponding to the type of the second tab page (See Decker para. [0075]: “Each page 306 and its corresponding tab 310 move together as a unit as array 305 is scrolled. (As new pages become visible, they can be loaded from the cache of browser application 145 or dynamically reloaded from their original sources).” Therefore, the respective content to each tab can be loaded from the cache itself. This includes the “need” of loading from the cache as the pages become visible); and
switching to the second tab page to display the render page of the second application service by receiving a switching operation performed between the plurality of tab pages (See Decker Figs. 2-5 and paras. [0073], [0076], [0079-80], and [0113]: can select tabs to change between them, including using gestures and selecting. This includes rendering the pages that are representative of each of the additional tabs).
However, while Decker teaches the page containers generally corresponding to the position of the tabs and the cache, Decker does not explicitly teach or suggest container types associated with page types.
Timmons teaches the page container corresponding to the type of the second tab page being different from a page container corresponding to a type of the first tab page (See Timmons Fig. 4 and paras. [0025], [0084], and [0097-98]: checking page containers for matches based on content type via the target tag. By loading different containers, this shows that different content has different tags that would apply to the cache retrieval of Decker).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the cache and tab loading of Decker with the different containers of Timmons. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose monitoring and retrieving web page content and Timmons further improves the browsing of Decker by enabling customized aggregation of content while also saving the user extra clicks for content (See Timmons paras. [0008-10]).
.
As per claim 2, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: returning to the first tab page by a switching operation performed between the plurality of tab pages after determining that the render page of the second application service is displayed (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0076] and [0080]: switching to rendered other tabs; para. [0052]: “The user can scroll through this array to view and select any of the open content items to become the active tab. When a content item is selected to become the open tab, the browser can switch to the full-frame mode to display the selected content item as the active item”. Therefore, the second page is rendered, but the user can select any of the rendered thumbnails, which includes the first page).
As per claim 3, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the switching to the second tab page comprises: performing a switching between the plurality of tab pages by performing a sliding operation in an arrangement direction of tab options corresponding to the plurality of tab pages (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0074-76]: scrolling between tabbed representations; para. [0113]: “the array can be scrolled by a dragging gesture (e.g., with one finger or two fingers sliding across the touch-sensitive surface): a dragging gesture to the left (right) can move the visible portion of the array to the left (right).”).
As per claim 4, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the sliding operation comprises a sliding operation performed in the plurality of tab pages through a touch screen of an associated terminal device (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0074-76]: scrolling between tabbed representations; para. [0113]: “the array can be scrolled by a dragging gesture (e.g., with one finger or two fingers sliding across the touch-sensitive surface): a dragging gesture to the left (right) can move the visible portion of the array to the left (right)”; paras. [0058-60]: touchscreen display).
As per claim 6, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 3, further comprising: providing a transition animation with a pulling effect in a process of switching from a source tab page to a target tab page, so as to prompt a user to switch back to the source tab page by sliding in an opposite direction (See Decker Figs. 2-5 and paras. [0076], [0080], and [0084]: switching to rendered other tabs. Furthermore, “the transition at block 512 can include a smooth animation that facilitates user understanding of the relationship between the tabbed content items in the array mode and the tabs in the full-frame mode”; para. [0052]: “The user can scroll through this array to view and select any of the open content items to become the active tab. When a content item is selected to become the open tab, the browser can switch to the full-frame mode to display the selected content item as the active item”. Therefore, the second page is rendered, but the user can select any of the rendered thumbnails, which includes the first page. So as the users switch between the tabbed representations, there is a transition that pulls the thumbnails into view from a single page to the multiple arrays).
As per claim 7, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the switching to the second tab page comprises: performing switching between the plurality of tab pages by determining a click on tab options corresponding to the plurality of tab pages (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0006] and [0080]: “The user can switch to a different tab by selecting (e.g., clicking on) any of the non-active tabs in the browser, whereupon the selected tab becomes the active tab, and the current page associated with that tab is rendered in the page-display area and becomes the active page for the browser…” Furthermore, “[a]t any time while in array mode, the user can choose to return to full-frame mode. In some embodiments, selecting any visible page 306 (e.g., by clicking or tapping on the page or its tab) causes browser application 145 to return to full-frame mode (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2), with the selected tab/page becoming the active tab/page”).
As per claim 10, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: hiding a system tab option after the render page of the second application service is switched to display (See Decker Figs. 29-33 and paras. [0156]: tabs can be hidden in a pile. “The active tab sits on top of and between the two piles. Tabs shift left and right between the piles as the active tab changes.” Therefore, as the user switches between tabs, such as to the second application service, the other tabs can be piled).
As per claim 11, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the second application service corresponding to the second tab page is configured according to personalized information of a current page (See Decker paras. [0145-148]: credentialed information to populate and retrieve remote tab information).
As per claim 13, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising: providing an operation option for adding a new second tab page; and providing an application service list after receiving an operation request through the operation option, and generating the new second tab page according to a render page corresponding to a selected application service (See Decker paras. [0130-131] and [0151-152]: new tab pages can be loaded, including when using the credentialed remote tab information that opens the remote tab as a new local tab as the full-frame view).
As per claim 14, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in a process of switching the plurality of tab pages, according to display state information of a source tab page before switching, positioning a target tab page to a position where content related to a display state is located for display (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0074-77]: scrolling between tabbed representations; para. [0113]: “the array can be scrolled by a dragging gesture (e.g., with one finger or two fingers sliding across the touch-sensitive surface): a dragging gesture to the left (right) can move the visible portion of the array to the left (right)”. Position information is tracked based on the order of the tabs as well as via the position indicators 316).
As per claim 15, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein: the page data further comprises page type information corresponding to the plurality of tab pages (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0074-76] and [0166]: tabbed content can include different types of web pages, as shown in the cited Figures (such as “British News” and “Hi Tech Company”). Furthermore, “other types of content items can also be the subject of browsing. Examples include document files (which may be stored locally on the user's computer or remotely), photos, media items, content streams”).
As per claim 16, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein: the different page types comprise a system native page, a light application page, a fifth-generation hypertext markup language (HTML5) page, or a hybrid application page (See Decker paras. [0088] and [0166]: different application and content types for pages, including default pages).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker/Timmons as applied above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0293454; hereinafter “Jeon”).
As per claim 5, Decker/Timmons teaches the method according to claim 3. While Decker/Timmons teaches the sliding operations, Decker/Timmons does not explicitly teach or suggest air gestures.
Jeon teaches wherein the sliding operation comprises a sliding gesture operation performed by an air gesture without touch of a touch screen (See Jeon paras. [0052-54] and [0105]: various touchless spatial gestures that can be used to perform “an action of navigating the tabs” in web browsers).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the gesture navigation of Decker/Timmons with the touchless gestures of Jeon. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose using gestures to navigate tabs in a web browser, and Jeon enhances the user experience of Decker by allowing the user to more intuitively interact with the device in an increasing variety of ways, while also recognizing the need to recognize these distinct gestures and their inputs as devices develop more touch or motion-based device-control (See Jeon paras. [0006-07].
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker/Timmons as applied above, and further in view of Choc et al. (U.S. 9,588,636 B1; hereinafter “Choc”).
As per claim 8, Decker/Timmons further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: setting a switching function between the plurality of tab pages to a disabled state in response to determining that the first tab page has been scrolled [to a personalized recommendation module] for a current user in a state of displaying the first tab page (See Decker paras. [0130-131] and [0151-152]: new tab pages can be loaded, including when using the credentialed remote tab information that opens the remote tab as a new local tab as the full-frame view; paras. [0160-161]: scrolling can be end-limited and prevent the user from scrolling any further. Therefore, if the user has been credentialed and their remote tabs linked, then the user cannot scroll any further than that final tab).
However, Decker/Timmons does not hide the tab options after disabling them.
Choc teaches hiding tab options corresponding to the plurality of tab pages after setting the switching function between the plurality of tab pages to the disabled state, so as to display more content about the first tab page in a screen space (See Choc cols. 6:62-67 to 7:1-6: hiding web browser toolbar (such as the tabs of Decker/Timmons), when the content is full screen mode).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the gesture navigation of Decker/Timmons with the full screen hiding of menu objects and toolbars of Choc. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose navigating different content within a web browser, and Choc enhances the user experience of Decker/Timmons by allowing the user to see more of the content on a smaller mobile device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker/Timmons as applied above, and further in view of Collins et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0187842; hereinafter “Collins”).
As per claim 12, Decker/Timmons teaches the method according to claim 11. However, while Decker/Timmons teaches dragging gestures as well as opening second content in new tabs (as detailed above), Decker/Timmons does not drag the icons to a tab option bar.
Collins teaches receiving an operation of dragging an icon corresponding to the first application service in the first tab page to a tab option bar in a state of displaying the first tab page; and determining the first application service corresponding to the icon as the second application service, and generating a new second tab page according to a render page thereof (See Collins Fig. 5 and para. [0055]: links can be dragged to tabs that represent specific independent actions. Here, the user of Collins would be dragging a hyperlink of Decker to the tab bar of Decker to launch/open a new tab and page that the hyperlink directs to).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the gesture navigation of Decker/Timmons with the drag and drop gestures of Collins. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose using gestures to content and selecting hyperlinks in a web browser, and Collins enhances the user experience of Decker/Timmons by increasing the ease of use, providing additional options to intuitively interact with the interface (See Collins paras. [0015-19].
Claims 17-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker and further in view of Cleron et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0391730; hereinafter, Cleron”).
As per claim 17, Decker teaches an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (See Decker para. [0054]); and
one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising (See Decker paras. [0054-55]):
acquiring page data after receiving an access request for a target page, the page data including page type information corresponding to a tab page and page content loading related information (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0079-80]: users can select hyperlinks within browser windows and this action can create a new tab and page based on the linked content);
starting a corresponding page container according to page type information of a target tab page in a process of displaying a plurality of tab pages in a switching manner in a page space (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0075] and [0079-80]: users can select hyperlinks within browser windows and this action can create a new tab and page based on the linked content);
loading page content of the target tab page through the corresponding page container; and displaying the page content in the page space (See Decker Figs. 2-5 and paras. [0076], [0080], and [0084]: displaying an array mode of other tabs and their content, with the ability to switch between the rendered other tabs; Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0074-76] and [0166]: tabbed content can include different types of web pages, as shown in the cited Figures (such as “British News” and “Hi Tech Company”). Furthermore, “other types of content items can also be the subject of browsing. Examples include document files (which may be stored locally on the user's computer or remotely), photos, media items, content streams”).
However, while Decker teaches tab options, Decker does not alter where those tabs are arranged.
Cleron teaches displaying an arrangement direction of tab options based at least in part on an arrangement mode of the page content, wherein the tab options are arranged vertically when the page content is arranged horizontally, and the tab options are arranged horizontally when the page content is arranged vertically (See Cleron Fig. 1A and paras. [0032] and [0036]: “One such change in displays from portrait to landscape mode includes a transformation of the bottom bar 112 into a sidebar. Such a transformation occurs so as to maintain the bar 112 along a short side of the display.” Therefore, as the content changes orientation, so does the sidebar/bottom bar. Combined with Decker, this would show that the tabs of Decker also would change according to the content orientation).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tab layout of Decker with the rearranged orientation of Cleron. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose user interface interactions with various arrays of presented content, and Cleron further enhances the user experience by avoiding altering the overall layout of the display, allowing the user to easily visualize orientation-based changes and maintain familiarity therewith (See Cleron para. [0032]).
As per claim 18, Decker/Cleron further teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein: the plurality of tab pages corresponds to a variety of different page types; and page containers corresponding to the variety of different page types are started in the process of displaying the plurality of tab pages in a switching manner (See Decker para. [0075]: “Each page 306 and its corresponding tab 310 move together as a unit as array 305 is scrolled. (As new pages become visible, they can be loaded from the cache of browser application 145 or dynamically reloaded from their original sources).” Therefore, the respective content to each tab can be loaded from the cache itself; Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0074-76] and [0166]: tabbed content can include different types of web pages, as shown in the cited Figures (such as “British News” and “Hi Tech Company”). Furthermore, “other types of content items can also be the subject of browsing. Examples include document files (which may be stored locally on the user's computer or remotely), photos, media items, content streams”).
As per claim 19, Decker/Cleron further teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein:
the page space comprises a tab option display area (See Decker Figs. 2-4 and paras. [0068]: tab indicators 206);
and the acts further comprise determining a corresponding background theme of the tab option display area according to a background color of the currently displayed tab page (See Decker para. [0090]: tab colors and shading and effects can correspond to the background patterns behind the array).
As per claim 21, Decker/Cleron further teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the page type information of the target tab page comprises one of: a light application page, a native page, a hybrid application page, or a fifth-generation hypertext markup language (HTML5) page (See Decker paras. [0088] and [0166]: different application and content types for pages, including default pages; see also Cleron paras. [0071] and [0084-85]: each icon may be assigned a URI which is registered at the operating system level).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker and further in view of Timmons and Weber et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0145290; hereinafter “Weber”).
As per claim 20, Decker teaches one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts (See Decker paras. [0054-55) comprising: displaying a page, the page comprising:
a plurality of tab pages, the plurality of tab pages including a first tab page and at least one second tab page, wherein: the first tab page displays one or more links to one or more first application services in an application service set in an aggregated manner, so as to provide an access entry to the one or more first application services through the one or more links; a second tab page of the at least one second tab page corresponds to a render page of a second application service in the application service set, so as to provide an access entry to the second application service by switching between tab pages; (See Decker Figs. 2-5 and paras. [0073], [0076], [0079-80], and [0113]: users can select hyperlinks within browser windows and this action can create a new tab and page based on the linked content. Furthermore, the tabs can be aggregated in an array mode. A user can select tabs to change between them, including using gestures and selecting. This includes rendering the pages that are representative of each of the additional tabs);
preloading page content of the at least one second tab page through the page container corresponding to the type of the second tab page before receiving a switching operation directed to the second tab page, so that the page content of the second tab page is available for immediate display upon receiving the switching operation (See Decker para. [0075]: “Each page 306 and its corresponding tab 310 move together as a unit as array 305 is scrolled. (As new pages become visible, they can be loaded from the cache of browser application 145 or dynamically reloaded from their original sources).” Therefore, the respective content to each tab can be loaded from the cache itself. This includes the “need” of loading from the cache as the pages become visible).
However, while Decker teaches the page containers generally corresponding to the position of the tabs and the cache, Decker does not explicitly teach or suggest container types associated with page types.
Timmons teaches a page container corresponding to a type of the second tab page being different from a page container corresponding to a type of the first tab page (See Timmons Fig. 4 and paras. [0025], [0084], and [0097-98]: checking page containers for matches based on content type via the target tag. By loading different containers, this shows that different content has different tags that would apply to the cache retrieval of Decker).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the cache and tab loading of Decker with the different containers of Timmons. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose monitoring and retrieving web page content and Timmons further improves the browsing of Decker by enabling customized aggregation of content while also saving the user extra clicks for content (See Timmons paras. [0008-10]).
Furthermore, while Decker teaches the various tab navigations, Decker does not explicitly teach the scrolling of the content of the particular tab pages. While it would be obvious given the scrollbars displayed in the cited Figures of Decker, Weber teaches displaying one of: (1) the one or more links corresponding to the one or more first application services within the first tab page in a scrolling manner, or (2) the plurality of tab pages in a switching manner, based at least in part on whether an operation received from a user is a sliding operation in a length direction of the screen, or a sliding operation in a width direction of the screen, so as to concurrently support within-page content scrolling and cross-tab navigation through directionally distinct gestures (See Weber para. [0029]: distinction between horizontal and vertical touch gestures, where the horizontal gesture can switch between tabbed web pages and the vertical action can be used for scrolling, such as the content on the webpages of Decker).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tab scrolling of Decker/Timmons with the content scrolling of Weber. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose gestures to navigate webpages, including swiping through tabbed pages, and Weber further improves the user experience of the browsing of Decker by ensuring that distinctions are made between how the user interacts, including using the well-known method of dragging to scroll content. This further includes more specific handles on the navigation and a more-tuned control of the tab-navigation as well (See Weber paras. [0008]).
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 Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights