DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment submitted on April 10, 2026.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 18, and 21 are currently amended.
Claims 20 and 22-24 are canceled.
The objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention.
The objections to Claims 2, 8, and 18 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of Claim 5 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claim.
In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “the first execution result.” It should read -- the execution result --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0292141 (hereinafter “Yu”) (cited in the IDS submitted on 09/04/2024) in view of US 6,658,624 (hereinafter “Savitzky”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a quick application processing method (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Yu is generally directed to providing a quick application startup method (Yu, paragraph [0006]). And as for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Savitzky is generally directed to processing documents, text, and programs in a uniform and easily maintained manner (Savitzky, col. 1 lines 24-28). Thus, Yu and Savitzky are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 1, Yu discloses:
A method (paragraph [0005], “This application provides a quick application startup method […].”) comprising:
sending, to a server and in response to a page opening operation on a target quick application, a preprocessed data request (paragraph [0069]1, “S104: Detect that the user taps the option 320. In response to this tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the application server 200, to download an application package of a quick application corresponding to the option 320 [sending, to a server and in response to a page opening operation on a target quick application, a preprocessed data request] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0217], “When the user taps the open control, the intelligent terminal 300 obtains the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application […] [in response to a page opening operation on a target quick application].”);
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Yu discloses that the intelligent terminal sends a request to the application server to download an application package of a quick application.]
receiving, from the server and in response to the preprocessed data request, preprocessed data comprising a first execution result of a target script file (paragraph [0070], “S105: In response to this request, the application server 200 sends the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application to the intelligent terminal 300.”; paragraph [0072], “S106: After receiving the application package sent by the application server 200, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application, and parses the application package to obtain a URL of data required for first screen display of the quick application [receiving, from the server and in response to the preprocessed data request, preprocessed data] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0078], “[…] in response to the tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 further requests acceleration scripts of two quick applications in the application list from the application server. The acceleration script may be parsed to obtain the URL corresponding to the data required for the first screen display of the quick application corresponding to the acceleration script. […] the intelligent terminal executes the acceleration script, and requests, from the third-party server 400 based on the URL obtained through parsing, the data required for the first screen display [a first execution result of a target script file]. After downloading of the application package is completed, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application (emphasis added).”), wherein the target script file corresponds to a target page in the target quick application (paragraph [0169], “The acceleration script generation module may generate, based on the application package in the application package storage module, an acceleration script corresponding to the application package [wherein the target script file corresponds to a target page in the target quick application]. Specifically, one application package corresponds to one acceleration script (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0217], “When the user taps the open control, the intelligent terminal 300 obtains the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application […] [a target page in the target quick application].”);
generating the target page based on the preprocessed data (paragraph [0076], “S109: After receiving the data sent by the third-party server 400, the intelligent terminal 300 performs rendering based on the data to generate and display a first screen of the ‘News.com’ quick application [generating the target page based on the preprocessed data] (emphasis added).”); and
displaying the target page (paragraph [0076], “S109: After receiving the data sent by the third-party server 400, the intelligent terminal 300 performs rendering based on the data to generate and display a first screen of the ‘News.com’ quick application [displaying the target page] (emphasis added).”).
Yu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first execution result is generated by the server executing the target script file.
However, Savitzky discloses:
wherein the first execution result is generated by the server executing the target script file (col. 2 lines 1-9, “[…] instead of a request being directed to a static, pre-existing hypertext page stored on a server, the request could be directed to a script, such as a Common Gateway Interface (CGI) script. With such a script, a client sends the server a request that could specify either a static document or a script, but the server determines that the request is directed to a script and responds by executing the script and returning the output of the script as the request result [wherein the first execution result is generated by the server executing the target script file] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Yu and Savitzky are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Savitzky into the teaching of Yu to include “wherein the first execution result is generated by the server executing the target script file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to execute a script and return an output of the script as a request result (Savitzky, col. 2 lines 1-9).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
sending, to the server, the preprocessed data request when the preprocessed data exists in the server (paragraph [0069], “S104: Detect that the user taps the option 320. In response to this tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the application server 200, to download an application package of a quick application corresponding to the option 320.”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
wherein the preprocessed data further comprises a common resource file in an application package of the target quick application (paragraph [0052], “The web page is source code written in a specific computer language, for example, hypertext markup language (hypertext markup language, HTML), cascading style sheets (cascading style sheets, CSS), or a Java script (JavaScript, JS).”).
As per Claim 11, Yu discloses:
A method (paragraph [0005], “This application provides a quick application startup method […].”) implemented by a server (Figure 1A: 200), comprising:
receiving, from a terminal device, a preprocessed data request corresponding to a target quick application (paragraph [0069]1, “S104: Detect that the user taps the option 320. In response to this tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the application server 200, to download an application package of a quick application corresponding to the option 320 (emphasis added).”); and
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Yu discloses that the intelligent terminal sends a request to the application server to download an application package of a quick application. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the application server receives, from the intelligent terminal, the request to download the application package of the quick application.]
returning, to the terminal device, preprocessed data corresponding to the preprocessed data request (paragraph [0070], “S105: In response to this request, the application server 200 sends the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application to the intelligent terminal 300 [returning, to the terminal device, preprocessed data corresponding to the preprocessed data request] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0072], “S106: After receiving the application package sent by the application server 200, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application, and parses the application package to obtain a URL of data required for first screen display of the quick application.”),
wherein the preprocessed data comprises a first execution result of a target script file (paragraph [0078], “[…] in response to the tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 further requests acceleration scripts of two quick applications in the application list from the application server. The acceleration script may be parsed to obtain the URL corresponding to the data required for the first screen display of the quick application corresponding to the acceleration script. […] the intelligent terminal executes the acceleration script, and requests, from the third-party server 400 based on the URL obtained through parsing, the data required for the first screen display [wherein the preprocessed data comprises a first execution result of a target script file]. After downloading of the application package is completed, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application (emphasis added).”), and
wherein the target script file corresponds to a target page (paragraph [0169], “The acceleration script generation module may generate, based on the application package in the application package storage module, an acceleration script corresponding to the application package [wherein the target script file corresponds to a target page]. Specifically, one application package corresponds to one acceleration script (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0217], “When the user taps the open control, the intelligent terminal 300 obtains the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application […] [a target page].”).
Yu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first execution result is generated by executing the target script file at the server.
However, Savitzky discloses:
wherein the first execution result is generated by executing the target script file at the server (col. 2 lines 1-9, “[…] instead of a request being directed to a static, pre-existing hypertext page stored on a server, the request could be directed to a script, such as a Common Gateway Interface (CGI) script. With such a script, a client sends the server a request that could specify either a static document or a script, but the server determines that the request is directed to a script and responds by executing the script and returning the output of the script as the request result [wherein the first execution result is generated by executing the target script file at the server] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Yu and Savitzky are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Savitzky into the teaching of Yu to include “wherein the first execution result is generated by executing the target script file at the server.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to execute a script and return an output of the script as a request result (Savitzky, col. 2 lines 1-9).
As per Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
wherein before receiving the preprocessed data request (paragraph [0067], “S103: After receiving the application information sent by the application server 200, the intelligent terminal 300 displays an application list based on the application information.”; paragraph [0068], “For a user interface that displays the application list, refer to a user interface 32 shown in FIG. 1D as an example. The user interface 32 includes two list options: an option 320 and an option 322.”), the method further comprises:
determining the target script file based on an application package of the target quick application (paragraph [0078], “[…] in response to the tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 further requests acceleration scripts of two quick applications in the application list from the application server.”); and
executing the target script file through a script engine to obtain the first execution result of the target script file (paragraph [0078], “The acceleration script may be parsed to obtain the URL corresponding to the data required for the first screen display of the quick application corresponding to the acceleration script.”).
As per Claim 16, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
receiving, from the terminal device, an application package download request (paragraph [0069], “S104: Detect that the user taps the option 320. In response to this tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the application server 200, to download an application package of a quick application corresponding to the option 320.”); and
returning, to the terminal device, the application package corresponding to the application package download request (paragraph [0070], “S105: In response to this request, the application server 200 sends the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application to the intelligent terminal 300.”; paragraph [0072], “S106: After receiving the application package sent by the application server 200, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application, and parses the application package to obtain a URL of data required for first screen display of the quick application.”).
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 10). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 10.
Claim 21 is an electronic device claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Savitzky as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2015/0334159 (hereinafter “Li”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a quick application processing method (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Li is generally directed to a browser for executing a browser active object (Li, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
wherein the first execution result of the target script file comprises a first instruction and a second instruction, wherein the first instruction is a second execution result corresponding to an executed script instruction in the target script file (paragraph [0070], “S105: In response to this request, the application server 200 sends the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application to the intelligent terminal 300.”; paragraph [0072], “S106: After receiving the application package sent by the application server 200, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application, and parses the application package to obtain a URL of data required for first screen display of the quick application.”; paragraph [0078], “[…] the intelligent terminal executes the acceleration script, and requests, from the third-party server 400 based on the URL obtained through parsing, the data required for the first screen display. After downloading of the application package is completed, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application.”).
The combination of Yu and Savitzky does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second instruction is a to-be-executed script instruction in the target script file, and wherein the method further comprises:
executing the second instruction through a script engine to obtain a third instruction; and
further generating the target page according to the first instruction and the third instruction.
However, Li discloses:
wherein the second instruction is a to-be-executed script instruction in the target script file (paragraph [0055], “[…] the method 300 proceeds to step S302, wherein by invoking a scheduling interface of the proxy object, the active object enables the proxy object to execute a method of obtaining a scheduling identification of a to-be-executed method in the script, and the proxy object, after obtaining the scheduling identification, returns the scheduling identification to the active object via the communication window.”), and wherein the method further comprises:
executing the second instruction through a script engine to obtain a third instruction (paragraph [0057], “Then, the method 300 proceeds to step S304, wherein the proxy object executes the to-be-executed method in the script by executing the instruction, and then returns an execution result to the active object. Specifically, the proxy object executes the instruction of Invoke(ID) so as to execute the to-be-executed method in the script to make the webpage become black, and return a notification message of the effect that the webpage becomes black to the active object.”); and
further generating the target page according to the first instruction and the third instruction (paragraph [0057], “Then, the method 300 proceeds to step S304, wherein the proxy object executes the to-be-executed method in the script by executing the instruction, and then returns an execution result to the active object. Specifically, the proxy object executes the instruction of Invoke(ID) so as to execute the to-be-executed method in the script to make the webpage become black, and return a notification message of the effect that the webpage becomes black to the active object.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li into the combined teachings of Yu and Savitzky to include “wherein the second instruction is a to-be-executed script instruction in the target script file, and wherein the method further comprises: executing the second instruction through a script engine to obtain a third instruction; and further generating the target page according to the first instruction and the third instruction.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a proxy object running in a webpage process execute a script of an active object running in an independent process controlling a webpage in the webpage process (Li, paragraph [0054]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Yu discloses “a third-party server corresponding to the target quick application” (paragraph [0060], “The third-party server 400 may provide data required for running a quick application, for example, may provide data such as a news list and news content for a quick application of a news type.”), but the combination of Yu and Savitzky does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second instruction comprises an input parameter, and wherein the input parameter comprises a device parameter of a terminal device and/or running data from a third-party server corresponding to the target quick application.
However, Li discloses:
wherein the second instruction comprises an input parameter, and wherein the input parameter comprises a device parameter of a terminal device and/or running data […] (paragraph [0057], “Then, the method 300 proceeds to step S304, wherein the proxy object executes the to-be-executed method in the script by executing the instruction, and then returns an execution result to the active object. Specifically, the proxy object executes the instruction of Invoke(ID) so as to execute the to-be-executed method in the script to make the webpage become black, and return a notification message of the effect that the webpage becomes black to the active object.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li into the combined teachings of Yu and Savitzky to include “wherein the second instruction is a to-be-executed script instruction in the target script file, and wherein the method further comprises: executing the second instruction through a script engine to obtain a third instruction; and further generating the target page according to the first instruction and the third instruction.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a proxy object running in a webpage process execute a script of an active object running in an independent process controlling a webpage in the webpage process (Li, paragraph [0054]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and the combination of Yu and Savitzky does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second instruction comprises a to-be-executed tag and corresponding to a detected to-be-executed tag, and wherein the method further comprises executing, through the script engine, the second instruction when detecting the to-be-executed tag.
However, Li discloses:
wherein the second instruction comprises a to-be-executed tag and corresponding to a detected to-be-executed tag, and wherein the method further comprises executing, through the script engine, the second instruction when detecting the to-be-executed tag (paragraph [0055], “Specifically, first, the independent process parses the script corresponding to the clicking operation of the button, obtains a to-be-executed method in the script to allow the webpage to become black, then schedules a name of the to-be-executed method in the script to an IDispatch interface of the active object, the IDispatch interface is the scheduling interface used to invoke a function in a language program not supporting a virtual function table, the IDispatch interface has a GetIDsOfNames function and an Invoke function, wherein the GetIDsOfNames function provides a method of using the name of the method to return its scheduling ID, and the Invoke function provides an instruction of using the scheduling ID of the method to execute the method. As the webpage corresponding to the active object is an empty webpage, and it does not have a method of enabling the webpage to become black, the active object cannot obtain the scheduling identification (ID) of the method in the script, and the active object invokes the IDispatch interface of the proxy object via the communication window.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li into the combined teachings of Yu and Savitzky to include “wherein the second instruction comprises a to-be-executed tag and corresponding to a detected to-be-executed tag, and wherein the method further comprises executing, through the script engine, the second instruction when detecting the to-be-executed tag.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a proxy object running in a webpage process execute a script of an active object running in an independent process controlling a webpage in the webpage process (Li, paragraph [0054]).
Claims 12-14 are method claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 2-4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2-4, respectively.
Claims 6-9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Savitzky as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2022/0107796 (hereinafter “Zou”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a quick application processing method (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Zou is generally directed to an application package splitting and reassembly method (Zou, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Zou is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Yu and Savitzky does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the target page is a home page of the target quick application.
However, Zou discloses:
wherein the target page is a home page of the target quick application (paragraph [0057], “The quick application center downloads a file including a main package and a plurality of sub-packages. After downloading the main package, the quick application center runs the main package and loads a home page, and then, continues to download a sub-package in the file, runs the sub-package, and loads a page corresponding to the sub-package.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Zou is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zou into the combined teachings of Yu and Savitzky to include “wherein the target page is a home page of the target quick application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to load a home page of a quick application so that a user can navigate the quick application.
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
sending, to the server, an application package download request corresponding to the target quick application to the server (paragraph [0069], “S104: Detect that the user taps the option 320. In response to this tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the application server 200, to download an application package of a quick application corresponding to the option 320.”);
receiving, from the server, an application package of the target quick application (paragraph [0070], “S105: In response to this request, the application server 200 sends the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application to the intelligent terminal 300.”; paragraph [0072], “S106: After receiving the application package sent by the application server 200, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application, and parses the application package to obtain a URL of data required for first screen display of the quick application.”); and
further generating the targe page based on the application package when the preprocessed data does not exist in the server (paragraph [0073], “S107: The intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the third-party server 400 based on the URL, to download the data required for the first screen display of the quick application.”; paragraph [0074], “Specifically, before S107 is performed, a quick application engine of the instant messaging application (for example, WeChat application) determines that no data corresponding to the URL exists locally.”).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
determining, based on a quick application list preprocessing result, whether the preprocessed data exists in the server, wherein the quick application list preprocessing result is from the server and comprises a first preprocessing result of at least one quick application (paragraph [0065], “S102: In response to this request, the application server 200 sends, to the intelligent terminal 300, the application information of the applet that conforms to the name entered by the user.”; paragraph [0066], “Specifically, the application server 200 determines, based on the name entered by the user, the applet that conforms to the name entered by the user, and then sends, to the intelligent terminal 300, the application information of the applet that conforms to the name entered by the user.”), and wherein a second preprocessing result of each quick application indicates whether a second execution result of a script file corresponding to […] the quick application exists in the server (paragraph [0078], “[…] in response to the tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 further requests acceleration scripts of two quick applications in the application list from the application server. The acceleration script may be parsed to obtain the URL corresponding to the data required for the first screen display of the quick application corresponding to the acceleration script. When detecting that the user taps the option 320, the intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the application server 200 in response to this tap operation, to download the application package of the quick application corresponding to the option 320. In addition, the intelligent terminal executes the acceleration script, and requests, from the third-party server 400 based on the URL obtained through parsing, the data required for the first screen display. After downloading of the application package is completed, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application.”).
The combination of Yu and Savitzky does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a home page of the target quick application […].
However, Zou discloses:
[…] a home page of the target quick application […] (paragraph [0057], “The quick application center downloads a file including a main package and a plurality of sub-packages. After downloading the main package, the quick application center runs the main package and loads a home page, and then, continues to download a sub-package in the file, runs the sub-package, and loads a page corresponding to the sub-package.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Zou is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zou into the combined teachings of Yu and Savitzky to include “[…] a home page of the target quick application […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to load a home page of a quick application so that a user can navigate the quick application.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
sending, to the server, the preprocessed data request when the target quick application is started for a first time (paragraph [0069], “S104: Detect that the user taps the option 320. In response to this tap operation, the intelligent terminal 300 requests, from the application server 200, to download an application package of a quick application corresponding to the option 320.”).
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
As per Claim 18, the rejection of Claim 17 is incorporated; and Yu further discloses:
sending, to the terminal device, a quick application list preprocessing result comprising a first preprocessing result of at least one quick application (paragraph [0070], “S105: In response to this request, the application server 200 sends the application package of the ‘News.com’ quick application to the intelligent terminal 300.”; paragraph [0072], “S106: After receiving the application package sent by the application server 200, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application, and parses the application package to obtain a URL of data required for first screen display of the quick application.”), and wherein a second preprocessing result of each quick application indicates whether a second execution result of a script file corresponding to […] the quick application exists in a server (paragraph [0078], “[…] the intelligent terminal executes the acceleration script, and requests, from the third-party server 400 based on the URL obtained through parsing, the data required for the first screen display. After downloading of the application package is completed, the intelligent terminal 300 initializes the quick application.”).
The combination of Yu and Savitzky does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a home page of the target quick application […].
However, Zou discloses:
[…] a home page of the target quick application […] (paragraph [0057], “The quick application center downloads a file including a main package and a plurality of sub-packages. After downloading the main package, the quick application center runs the main package and loads a home page, and then, continues to download a sub-package in the file, runs the sub-package, and loads a page corresponding to the sub-package.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Zou is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zou into the combined teachings of Yu and Savitzky to include “[…] a home page of the target quick application […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to load a home page of a quick application so that a user can navigate the quick application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights