DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “processed using a software container received URL” is unclear. For purposes of this action, it will be interpreted as “processing using the software container the received URL.”
In claim 5, line 1 and claim 15, line 1, it is unclear what “wherein additionally takes into account” is referring to.
In claim 8, line 1, “clam” should be “claim.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Petry et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0075130 A1, hereinafter Petry).
As per claim 1, Petry teaches the limitations as claimed, including a method of converting a web resource into an application for a user device, performed using a processor and containing the following steps:
obtaining an information about a web resource in the form of at least a URL (Paragraphs [0082] and [0092]);
processed using a software container received URL, inside which the rules for saving a web resource on the user device are applied in the form of an application (Paragraphs [0092], [0154]-[0159], and [0162]);
converting the web resource with the specified rules for saving the application on the user device (Paragraphs [0041] and [0154]-[0159]);
saving the web resource as an application on the user device (Paragaphs [0032], [0098], [0131], [0165], and [0224]).
As per claim 2, Petry teaches that the web resource is checked for the possibility of being saved on the user device using a container (Paragraphs [0154]-[0159] and [0162]).
As per claim 3, Petry teaches that the verification is carried out by comparing the data of the operating environment of the user device with the saving rules applicable to the environment (Paragraphs [0056], [0154]-[0159], and [0162]).
As per claim 4, Petry teaches that the saving rules are based at least on the OS parameters and parameters of the user device web browser (Paragraphs [0056], [0154]-[0159], and [0162]).
As per claim 5, Petry teaches that additionally takes into account the screen resolution of the user device (Paragraphs [0156], [0157]).
As per claim 6, Petry teaches that a unified profile of the software container and the web resource user is additionally formed, and the unified profile contains at least the web resource ID (Paragraphs [0114], [0115], [0130]).
As per claim 7, Petry teaches that a unified profile contains unified data for end-to-end user authorization using a software container on an external web resource (Paragraphs [0100], [0114], [0115], [0130]).
As per claim 8, Petry teaches that the container online status is checked additionally, and the availability of the choice of the interaction method with the container for external API calls of the web resource is determined (Paragraphs [0049], [0050], [0129]).
As per claim 9, Petry teaches that external API calls are selected from PUSH notifications, or a request for the permission of PUSH notifications, or a request the fact that the application container was installed earlier, or a request for authorization data of a unified profile (Paragraphs [0129], [0152]).
As per claim 10, Petry teaches that the information about the web resource additionally contains a graphic icon or name (Paragraphs [0004] and [0016]).
As per claims 11-15, they are system claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197