DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on August 28, 2026. Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 28, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelik et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,651,142), in view of Nicholls et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,079,931), and further in view of Sasaki et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,834,329).
4-1. Regarding claims 1 and 8, Gorelik teaches the claim comprising: receiving a web page that includes a user interface (UI) script-code snippet, by disclosing a web client 110 that connects to a wide area network 120 using a web browser [column 4, lines 26-43; column 8, lines 25-26] to access a web page that provides a user interface for viewing and executing plans stored in a repository [column 4, lines 50-56].
Gorelik does not expressly teach monitoring, according to a browser security policy parameter, an activity related to the web page and associated with a user;… applying a browser security policy defined by the browser security policy parameter. Nichols discloses monitoring information input to, output from, used on or exchanged with or in any other manner utilized by an electronic device [column 32, lines 54-62] including accessing websites and web services when throttling information [column 33, lines 21-31; column 69, lines 28-32]. A usage context monitor determines the context in which a user is currently using a device based on types of usage rules [column 69, lines 3-25] and an information throttle uses context to determine whether and how to throttle the device based on the rules associated with workplace use policy [column 69, lines 25-28]. The throttle may modify access to applications, services, features, information sources, information items, data, websites, web services, and hardware capabilities based on the rules and based on the context [column 69, lines 28-32]. For example, access to certain applications and databases may be blocked [column 69, lines 32-50]. This would provide more security over access to certain information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor context with which a user is using a device based on usage rules and restrict access to certain data based on the context and usage rules, as taught by Nichols. This would provide more security over access to certain information.
Gorelik-Nichols teach detecting a first event in the web page to initiate the monitored activity associated with the UI script-code snippet, by disclosing receiving a user request to process data using a particular plan, including one or more data parameters [Gorelik, column 4, lines 56-59; column 7, lines 5-9].
Gorelik-Nichols teach controlling execution of the UI script-code snippet to generate an output value, by disclosing that after determining that data parameters are not stored in any cache in a plurality of tiers [Gorelik, column 7, lines 10-23], processing the user request in each tier using the data parameters to create a result set [Gorelik, column 7, lines 24-25].
Gorelik-Nichols teach generating a first user interface of the web page based at least upon the generated output value, by disclosing displaying a final result set to the user [Gorelik, column 7, lines 28-30].
Gorelik-Nichols teach storing the output value in at least one of an in-memory map or an in-local storage map, by disclosing storing the result set with the data parameters in a corresponding cache for use in processing of subsequent user requests [Gorelik, column 7, lines 25-28].
Gorelik-Nichols teach… detecting a second event in the web page to initiate the monitored activity, by disclosing receiving a user request to process data using a particular plan, including one or more data parameters [Gorelik, column 7, lines 38-43].
Gorelik-Nichols teach determining the at least one of the in-memory map or the in-local storage map stores the output value of the UI script-code snippet, by disclosing searching cache memories of multiple tiers until a parameterized result set associated with the data parameter is found [Gorelik, column 7, lines 44-65].
Gorelik-Nichols teach retrieving the output value of the UI script-code snippet from the determined at least one of the in-memory map or the in-local storage map, by disclosing creating the final result set [Gorelik, column 7, lines 66-67].
Gorelik-Nichols teach generating a second user interface of the web page based at least upon the retrieved output value, by disclosing displaying the final result set [Gorelik, column 8, lines 1-9].
Gorelik-Nichols do not expressly teach controlling purging of previously stored content in the in-memory map or the in-local storage map based at least on previous web page usage related activity associated with the user. Sasaki discloses a cache judging section that selects data to purge when there is not enough available space in the cache memory section [column 5, lines 33-39]. A lowest priority determining means specifies a data group with the lowest priority from among data groups managed by cache managing sections 21-1 to 21-n, and a data operating means of the cache managing section purges the lowest priority data items in the data group when there is not enough free memory space in the cache memory section [column 5, line 66 to column 6, line 5]. This may be done based on a least frequency used (LFU) policy [column 6, lines 21-25, 33-46]. This would help improve efficiency by keeping higher demand items stored in memory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control purging of the cache of Gorelik-Nichols based on a least frequently used policy, as taught by Sasaki. This would help improve efficiency by keeping higher demand items stored in memory.
4-2. Regarding claims 2 and 9, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein said applying a browser security policy comprises: blocking the activity, by disclosing that the throttle may modify access to applications, services, features, information sources, information items, data, websites, web services, and hardware capabilities based on the rules and based on the context [Nichols, column 69, lines 28-32]. For example, access to certain applications and databases may be blocked [Nichols, column 69, lines 32-50].
4-3. Regarding claims 3 and 10, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the detecting the first event in the web page comprises detecting a user input to the web page to request the activity, by disclosing receiving a user request, such as clicking a hypertext link, to process data using a particular plan, including one or more data parameters [Gorelik, column 4, lines 56-59; column 7, lines 5-9].
Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach wherein the controlling purging includes usage of a usage parameter associated with the user to determine the previously stored content to purge; and further comprising updating the usage parameter based at least on a previous retrieval of the output value of the UI script-code snippet or frequency of accessing the output value of the UI script-code snippet, by disclosing use of a LFU policy for purging the lowest priority data items when there is not enough free memory space [Sasaki, column 6, lines 21-25, 33-46].
4-4. Regarding claims 4 and 11, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, wherein the monitored activity includes at least one of: a clipboard action, a printing action, a download action, or an upload action, by disclosing that information input to, output from, used on or exchanged with or in any other manner utilized by an electronic device is monitored [Nichols, column 32, lines 54-62] including accessing websites and web services [Nichols, column 33, lines 21-31; column 69, lines 28-32] which requires the download of information.
4-5. Regarding claims 5 and 12, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, wherein said detecting the first event in the web page is performed in a first monitored session and said detecting the second event in the web page is performed in a second monitored session, by disclosing receiving a user request to process data using a particular plan, including one or more data parameters in a first session [Gorelik, column 4, lines 56-59; column 7, lines 5-9] and receiving a user request to process data using a particular plan, including one or more data parameters in a second session [Gorelik, column 7, lines 38-43]. Information input to, output from, used on or exchanged with or in any other manner utilized by an electronic device is monitored [Nichols, column 32, lines 54-62].
4-6. Regarding claims 6 and 13, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, wherein the output value includes code structured for at least one of monitoring policies of the browser or enforcing policies of the browser, by disclosing that based on monitored information, information throttling may at least partially increase or decrease capabilities or functionality or information related bandwidth or information type, e.g., from 0% to 100% functional and all values in between and including fully blocked and fully functional of software applications and websites [Nichols, column 33, lines 4-31], thus adjusting output based on monitoring policies.
4-7. Regarding claim 15, Gorelik teaches the claim comprising: receiving, in the browser, a web page that includes a user interface (UI) script-code snippet, by disclosing a web client 110 that connects to a wide area network 120 using a web browser [column 4, lines 26-43; column 8, lines 25-26] to access a web page that provides a user interface for viewing and executing plans stored in a repository [column 4, lines 50-56].
Gorelik does not expressly teach monitoring, according to a browser security policy parameter, an activity related to the web page usage associated with a user;… applying a browser security policy defined by the browser security policy parameter. Nichols discloses monitoring information input to, output from, used on or exchanged with or in any other manner utilized by an electronic device [column 32, lines 54-62] including accessing websites and web services when throttling information [column 33, lines 21-31; column 69, lines 28-32]. A usage context monitor determines the context in which a user is currently using a device based on types of usage rules [column 69, lines 3-25] and an information throttle uses context to determine whether and how to throttle the device based on the rules associated with workplace use policy [column 69, lines 25-28]. The throttle may modify access to applications, services, features, information sources, information items, data, websites, web services, and hardware capabilities based on the rules and based on the context [column 69, lines 28-32]. For example, access to certain applications and databases may be blocked [column 69, lines 32-50]. This would provide more security over access to certain information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor context with which a user is using a device based on usage rules and restrict access to certain data based on the context and usage rules, as taught by Nichols. This would provide more security over access to certain information.
Gorelik-Nichols teach detecting a first event in the web page to initiate the monitored activity associated with the UI script-code snippet, controlling execution of the UI script-code snippet to generate the output value of the UI script-code snippet, by disclosing receiving a user request to process data using a particular plan, including one or more data parameters [Gorelik, column 4, lines 56-59; column 7, lines 5-9] and after determining that data parameters are not stored in any cache in a plurality of tiers [Gorelik, column 7, lines 10-23], processing the user request in each tier using the data parameters to create a result set [Gorelik, column 7, lines 24-25].
Gorelik-Nichols teach generating a first user interface of the web page based at least upon the generated output value, by disclosing displaying a final result set to the user [Gorelik, column 7, lines 28-30].
Gorelik-Nichols teach storing the output value in the in-memory map and in the in-local storage map, by disclosing storing the result set with the data parameters in a corresponding cache for use in processing of subsequent user requests [Gorelik, column 6, lines 21-28; column 7, lines 25-28].
Gorelik-Nichols do not expressly teach controlling purging of previously stored content in the in-memory map or the in-local storage map of the browser based at least on previous web page related activity associated with the user. Sasaki discloses a cache judging section that selects data to purge when there is not enough available space in the cache memory section [column 5, lines 33-39]. A lowest priority determining means specifies a data group with the lowest priority from among data groups managed by cache managing sections 21-1 to 21-n, and a data operating means of the cache managing section purges the lowest priority data items in the data group when there is not enough free memory space in the cache memory section [column 5, line 66 to column 6, line 5]. This may be done based on a least frequency used (LFU) policy [column 6, lines 21-25, 33-46]. This would help improve efficiency by keeping higher demand items stored in memory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control purging of the cache of Gorelik-Nichols based on a least frequently used policy, as taught by Sasaki. This would help improve efficiency by keeping higher demand items stored in memory.
4-8. Regarding claim 16, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claim 15, further comprising: detecting a second event in the web page to initiate the monitored activity, by disclosing receiving a user request to process data using a particular plan, including one or more data parameters [Gorelik, column 7, lines 38-43].
Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach determining at least one of the in-memory map or the in-local storage map stores the output value of the UI script-code snippet, by disclosing searching cache memories of multiple tiers until a parameterized result set associated with the data parameter is found [Gorelik, column 7, lines 44-65].
Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach retrieving the output value of the UI script-code snippet from the determined at least one of the in-memory map or the in-local storage map, by disclosing creating the final result set [Gorelik, column 7, lines 66-67].
Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach generating a user interface of the web page based at least upon the retrieved output value, by disclosing displaying the final result set [Gorelik, column 8, lines 1-9].
4-9. Regarding claim 17, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claim 15, wherein the output value includes code structured for at least one of monitoring policies of the browser or enforcing policies of the browser, by disclosing that based on monitored information, information throttling may at least partially increase or decrease capabilities or functionality or information related bandwidth or information type, e.g., from 0% to 100% functional and all values in between and including fully blocked and fully functional of software applications and websites [Nichols, column 33, lines 4-31], thus adjusting output based on monitoring policies.
4-10. Regarding claim 18, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claim 15, wherein said controlling execution comprises: transmitting the UI script-code snippet to a server device for performing the execution of the script-code snippet to generate the output value; and receiving the output value from the server device, by disclosing that after determining that data parameters are not stored in any cache in a plurality of tiers [Gorelik, column 7, lines 10-23] and that the cost estimate is greater than the threshold [Luo, column 9, lines 30-33], processing the user request in each tier using the data parameters to create a result set [Gorelik, column 7, lines 24-25]. The multiple tiers include one or more processes running on a web server [Gorelik, column 7, lines 15-19].
4-11. Regarding claim 19, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claim 15, wherein said applying a browser security policy comprises: blocking the activity, by disclosing that the throttle may modify access to applications, services, features, information sources, information items, data, websites, web services, and hardware capabilities based on the rules and based on the context [Nichols, column 69, lines 28-32]. For example, access to certain applications and databases may be blocked [Nichols, column 69, lines 32-50].
5. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelik et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,651,142), in view of Nicholls et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,079,931), in view of Sasaki et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,834,329), and further in view of Mattis (U.S. Patent No. 6,292,880.
5-1. Regarding claims 7 and 14, Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively. Although Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki disclose storing a result set into a cache using one or more parameters that represent a key of the result set [Gorelik, column 5, lines 27-35], Gorelik-Nichols- Sasaki do not expressly teach wherein said storing the output value comprises: generating a key by performing a hashing function on the UI script-code snippet; and storing the output value in the in-memory map using the key as an index. Mattis discloses establishing a cache table in a memory of the server, the cache table comprising a name key that references a vector of alternates; (B) computing a content key that uniquely identifies the information object by applying a hash function to the information object; and (C) storing the content key in the cache table in one of the alternates [column 5, lines 28-36; column 8, lines 18-36]. This enables the cache to detect duplicate objects that have different names but the same content [column 8, lines 37-41], thus increasing storage space efficiency [column 8, line 55 to column 9, line 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a hash function to an information object to obtain an object key that serves as indexes into tables of a cache, as taught by Mattis. This would increase storage space efficiency.
5-2. Regarding claim 20, Gorelik-Nichols- Sasaki teach all the limitations of claim 15. Although Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki disclose storing a result set into a cache using one or more parameters that represent a key of the result set [Gorelik, column 5, lines 27-35], Gorelik-Nichols-Sasaki do not expressly teach wherein said storing the output value comprises: generating a key by performing a hashing function on the UI script-code snippet; and storing the output value in the in-memory map using the key as an index. Mattis discloses establishing a cache table in a memory of the server, the cache table comprising a name key that references a vector of alternates; (B) computing a content key that uniquely identifies the information object by applying a hash function to the information object; and (C) storing the content key in the cache table in one of the alternates [column 5, lines 28-36; column 8, lines 18-36]. This enables the cache to detect duplicate objects that have different names but the same content [column 8, lines 37-41], thus increasing storage space efficiency [column 8, line 55 to column 9, line 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a hash function to an information object to obtain an object key that serves as indexes into tables of a cache, as taught by Mattis. This would increase storage space efficiency.
Response to Arguments
6. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 15.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Gorelik et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,651,142), Nicholls et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,079,931), and Luo et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,242,061) fail to teach of suggest “controlling purging of previously stored content in the in-memory map or the in-local storage map based at least on previous web page usage related activity associated with the user," as has been amended to the claim. Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelik et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,651,142), in view of Nicholls et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,079,931), and further in view of Sasaki et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,834,329). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Similar arguments have been presented for independent claims 8 and 15 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15. However, as discussed above, Gorelik, in view of Nicholls, and further in view of Sasaki are considered to teach claims 1, 8, and 15, and consequently, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights