DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the applicant’s response received on 11/19/2025, for the final office action mailed on 08/26/2025.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraph numbers, or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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 from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in 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 or disclosed by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/19/2025 with respect to rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0117297 A1) hereinafter Ross, in further view of Mahajan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0098265 A1) hereinafter Mahajan, Bettesworth et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0205780 A1) hereinafter Bettesworth, and Day-Richter et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0199222 A1) hereinafter Day.
As per claim 1, Ross teaches A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, by the one or more processors (see Ross paragraph [0016], ” Client domain 107 may be a computer or a server, such as a webserver”), an updated embedding code (see Ross paragraph [0016], showing client embedded code) and an updated application configuration corresponding to the updated version of the embedded code (see Ross paragraph [0019], showing setting window to update settings for the iframe corresponding to the embedded code) in response to a determination that the updated embedded web application was published successfully (see Ross paragraph [0019], showing the iframe will immediately re-render reflecting the changes (i.e., successfully published); and storing the embedding code and the application configuration (see Ross paragraph [0013], showing the storing of the embedded content/code and changes to the content being made thru the settings window).
Ross does not explicitly teach generating, by the one or more processors, an updated version of an embedded code in response to receiving a request to publish an updated embedded web application from a previous embedded web application. However, Mahajan teaches generating, by the one or more processors (see Mahajan paragraph [0006], “The system includes a processor and a memory disposed in communication with the processor and storing processor-executable instructions”), the updated version of an embedded code in response to receiving a request to publish an updated embedded web application from a previous embedded web application (see Mahajan [0036], showing the compiling of an updated compiled app when receiving request to deploy the updated version utilizing prior version of an app).
Ross and Mahajan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross’ teaching of dynamic real-time management of cross-domain web content with Mahajan’s teaching of a social networking application updater to incorporate updating a version of an application dynamically (i.e., publishing or deploying) from a prior version (i.e., published) application in real-time.
Ross and Mahajan do not explicitly teach publishing, by the one or more processors, the updated embedded web application based on first publishing a resource other than an initial resource using a unique path to a previous version of the embedded code associated with the previous embedded web application and subsequently replacing the initial resource with the updated version of the embedded code and wherein the updated embedding code uses the updated application configuration to generate a request to fetch the updated version of the embedded code. However, Bettesworth teaches publishing, by the one or more processors, the updated embedded web application based on first publishing a resource other than an initial resource using a unique path to a previous version of the embedded code (see Bettesworth paragraph [0025], “Development server A (DEV.sub.A) sends a new version of a webpage A to production server A (PROD.sub.A) for publication”) and subsequently replacing the initial resource with the updated version of the embedded code associated with the previous embedded web application (see Bettesworth paragraph [0025], “Production server A checks for dependencies to webpages hosted by other servers and finds there are none, so proceeds with publishing the new version of webpage A, i.e. replacing the old version of the webpage A, i.e. Av1, with the new version Av2”) and wherein the updated embedding code uses the updated application configuration to generate a request to fetch the updated version of the embedded code (see Bettesworth paragraph [0061], “Step S8 of FIG. 8, is replaced by setting a flag indicating readiness to publish the new version which is externally visible, e.g. to a web master. The actual publication is then centrally initiated by the web master”).
Ross, Mahajan and Bettesworth are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross’ teaching of dynamic real-time management of cross-domain web content and Mahajan’s teaching of a social networking application updater with Bettesworth’s teaching publication of webpages across single and multiple websites to incorporate publishing updates in a coordinated and self-consistent manner.
Ross modified with Mahajan and Bettersworth do not explicitly teach grouping, into a code set by the one or more processors, a change between the updated version of the embedded code and the previous version of the embedded code, wherein the code set comprises a previous embedding code and a previous application configuration associated with the previous version of the embedded code, and wherein the change comprises a first change between a first instruction from the previous embedding code and an updated embedding code associated with the updated version of the embedded code, wherein: the first instruction creates a first iframe for embedding the previous embedded web application, the second instruction creates a second iframe for embedding the updated embedded application, and a second change between a first plurality of attributes of the first iframe from the previous application configuration and a second plurality of attributes of the second iframe from an updated application configuration associated with the updated version of the embedded code, wherein: the first plurality of attributes specify a first visual appearance of the first iframe corresponding to the previous embedded web application, the second plurality of attributes specify a second visual appearance of the second iframe corresponding to the updated embedded web application. However, Day teaches grouping, into a code set by the one or more processors, a change between the updated version of the embedded code and the previous version of the embedded code, wherein the code set comprises a previous embedding code and a previous application configuration associated with the previous version of the embedded code, and wherein the change comprises a first change between a first instruction from the previous embedding code and an updated embedding code associated with the updated version of the embedded code (see Day paragraph [0114], “If the first result and the second result are the same, there is no need to determine a transformed operation. If however, it is determined that the first result is different from the second result, then, at step 720, a first transformed operation and a second transformed operation are determined such that a first transformed result of applying the first transformed operation to the object instance followed by application of the second transformed operation to the object instance is the same as a second result of applying the second transformed operation to the object instance followed by application of the first transformed operation to the object instance. Processor 375 accordingly transforms the two changes into a pair of transformed operations: a first transformed operation to replace the first character "C" of the word with the characters "CH," and a second transformed operation to replace the fourth character "T" of the word object instance with the character "R" (instead of replacing the third character)”), wherein: the first instruction creates a first iframe for embedding the previous embedded web application, the second instruction creates a second iframe for embedding the updated embedded application, and a second change between a first plurality of attributes of the first iframe from the previous application configuration and a second plurality of attributes of the second iframe from an updated application configuration associated with the updated version of the embedded code (see Day paragraph [0151], “Collaborative development service 130 causes the third party software application to be executed and provides access to the application via an embedded frame. For example, the users may create a document using the application which is embedded as an IFrame on a webpage. At step 1604, the users interact with collaborative development service 130 via the embedded IFrame, using interframe communication through a parent frame. At step 1605, a determination is made whether substantially simultaneous instructions have been received from two or more users to change data in the document. If not, the method ends, at step 1610. If yes, transformation operational rules are applied to the instructions, at step 1606. At step 1607, collaborative development service 130 is updated, and requests are sent to the users' browsers to reflect the updates to the data. At step 1608, updates to the data are displayed within embedded IFrame in each user's display. At step 1609, a determination is made whether or not the users wish to make additional changes in the document. If so, the process returns to step 1605. If not, the process ends at step 1610”), wherein: the first plurality of attributes specify a first visual appearance of the first iframe corresponding to the previous embedded web application, the second plurality of attributes specify a second visual appearance of the second iframe corresponding to the updated embedded web application (see Day paragraph [0149], “Multiple users may use the software application to collaboratively create and edit a document. FIG. 16A is a flowchart of a method for providing collaborative development services in accordance with an embodiment. At step 1641, collaborative development service 130 receives, from a plurality of users associated with respective devices, a plurality of inputs associated with a third party software application, via respective embedded frames displayed on the respective devices. At step 1644, collaborative development service 130 updates a plurality of visual representations of the document displayed on respective devices to reflect a plurality of inputs substantially in real-time”).
Ross, Mahajan, Bettesworth and Day are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross’ teaching of dynamic real-time management of cross-domain web content, Mahajan’s teaching of a social networking application updater and Bettesworth’s teaching publication of webpages across single and multiple websites with Day’s teaching of providing collaborative online document processing services to incorporate combining previous version data along with new/updated version data in order to achieve optimal performance for the application and system while collaborating with a team, see Day paragraph [0109], “Referring again to FIG. 3, operational transformation rules 333 include rules governing the modification of an object instance, and the redrawing of the visual representations of the object instance on multiple user devices, when multiple changes are made to the object instance. In one embodiment, operational transformation rules 333 resolve conflicting changes specified in a plurality of instructions received from a plurality of user devices. When a plurality of instructions received from a plurality of user devices specify conflicting changes to a document that may create inconsistent visual representations of the document across the respective user devices, one or more operational transformations are applied to generate one or more transformed operations operable to reflect the specified changes in a consistent manner in the visual representations displayed on the respective devices. In particular, the rules apply a logic that contextualizes the changes specified by multiple instructions to determine a resolution that will result in a consistent visual representation of a document or object instance across multiple devices, without creating a collision (such as a temporal paradox or a data model inconsistency or a race condition). In one embodiment, operational transformations are applied to instructions received from user devices in real-time or substantially in real-time, to enable the respective user devices to update the respective visual representations of the document in real-time or substantially in real-time”.
As per claim 6, Ross modified with Mahajan, Bettersworth and Day teaches wherein the updated version of the embedded code includes instructions for implementing the updated embedded web application at a web client (see Mahajan paragraph [0059], showing a check for updates and implementing the necessary update to the version currently deployed to a user or client).
As per claims 8 and 13, these are the system claim to method claims 1 and 6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 15 and 20, these are the computer readable medium claims to method claim 1 and 6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0117297 A1), Mahajan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0098265 A1), Bettesworth (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0205780 A1) and Day (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0199222 A1), in further view of Cooke et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0100689 A1) hereinafter Cooke.
As per claim 2, Ross modified with Mahajan, Bettesworth and Day do not explicitly teach sending the updated embedding code and the updated application configuration to a web client in response to receiving a request generated by an in-line code snippet at the web client. However, Cooke teaches sending the embedding code and the application configuration to a web client in response to receiving a request generated by an in-line code snippet at the web client (see Cooke paragraph [0032], showing the use of an API (i.e., inline code) to update applications).
Ross, Mahajan, Bettesworth, Day and Cooke are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross’ teaching of dynamic real-time management of cross-domain web content, Mahajan’s teaching of a social networking application updater, Bettesworth’s teaching publication of webpages across single and multiple websites, and Day’s teaching of providing collaborative online document processing services with Cooke’s teaching of triggering on platform usage to incorporate using API code to delay processes from loading for a web app in order to optimize loading of a web application.
As per claim 7, Ross modified with Mahajan, Bettesworth, Day and Cooke teaches wherein an embedded web application is a real-time messaging application (see Cooke paragraph [0016], showing application platform can be an IP-based client application messaging app or a proprietary platform messaging such as a social network messaging app).
As per claim 9 and 14, these are the system claims to method claims 2 and 7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 16, this is the computer readable medium claim to method claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0117297 A1), Mahajan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0098265 A1), Bettesworth (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0205780 A1) and Day (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0199222 A1), in further view of Khan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2020/0250100 A1) hereinafter Khan.
As per claim 3, Ross modified with Mahajan, Bettesworth and Day do not explicitly teach invalidating an application server cache containing the previous embedding code and the previous application configuration corresponding to a previous version of the embedded code. However, Khan teaches invalidating an application server cache containing the previous embedding code and the previous application configuration corresponding to the previous version of the embedded code (see Khan paragraph [0039], showing the invalidation of a cache to prevent object or data from being served and guaranteeing the correct version is used).
Ross, Mahajan, Bettersworth, Day and Khan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross’ teaching of dynamic real-time management of cross-domain web content, Mahajan’s teaching of a social networking application updater, Bettesworth’s teaching publication of webpages across single and multiple websites and Day’s teaching of providing collaborative online document processing services with Khan’s teaching of implementing and providing cache services in a multitenant computing to incorporate invalidating a cache which has previous data in order to prevent and make sure the most current data / version is being used for a web application.
As per claim 10, this is the system claim to method claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 17, this is the computer readable medium claim to method claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0117297 A1), Mahajan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2016/0098265 A1), Bettesworth (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0205780 A1) and Day (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0199222 A1), in further view of Jiang et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0034899 A1) hereinafter Jiang.
As per claim 4, Ross modified with Mahajan, Bettesworth and Day do not explicitly teach wherein the updated embedding code includes instructions for creating an iframe for embedding the updated embedded web application within a parent page at the web client. However, Jiang teaches wherein the embedding code includes instructions for creating an iframe for embedding the updated embedded web application within a parent page at the web client (see Jiang paragraph [0041], showing a script instructing a browser to generate iframes on the social networking site (i.e., parent page).
Ross, Mahajan, Bettesworth, Day and Jiang are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross’ teaching of dynamic real-time management of cross-domain web content, Mahajan’s teaching of a social networking application updater, Bettesworth’s teaching publication of webpages across single and multiple websites and Day’s teaching of providing collaborative online document processing services with Jiang’s teaching of aggregating multiple plug-in request on a web page and to handling the placement of content associated by a response by a server to incorporate creating iframes in web pages to contain and better manage content within a web site or web application.
As per claim 5, Ross modified with Mahajan, Bettesworth, Day and Jiang teaches wherein the updated application configuration includes a plurality of attributes of an iframe for embedding the updated embedded web application within a parent page at a web client (see Jiang paragraph [0044-0045], showing iframes having their own parameters that are sent to the server in order to where a given web app or web plug-in needs to be rendered).
As per claims 11 and 12, these are the system claims to method claims 4 and 5. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 18 and 19, these are the computer readable medium claims to method claims 4 and 5. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chasman (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0039999 A1) teaching improved web user interface framework for building web applications.
Zuckerberg et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0256644 A1) teaching personalizing a web page outside of a social networking system with content from the social networking system.
SEO et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2022/0201145 A1) teaches providing application configuration file for backward compatible application.
Lachaume (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0128152 A1) teaches event driven object management and distribution among multiple client applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENIN PAULINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1734. The examiner can normally be reached Week 1: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm Week 2: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm and Fri 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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 on (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.
/LENIN PAULINO/Examiner, Art Unit 2197 /BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197