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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 2/13/2026.
In Amendment, no claims are cancelled and no claims are added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This Office Action is made final.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2003/0217197) in view of Livshits (US 9,405,555).
As per claim 1, Chan discloses a program execution method, applied to a computer system, the method comprising:
receiving a call request of a first program for a small stub function (Paragraph 4 “supplying portions of program code or program data of a computer program as the portions are needed by the program. The portions are defined in accordance with the logic of the computer program. The portions are then removed from the computer program to produce an application skeleton. Rather than downloading and running the entire program on a computing system, the computing system runs the smaller program skeleton. The computing system generally downloads the portions of the computer program and inserts them into the skeleton, as they are needed.”), wherein the small stub function is a function in a small stub function set (Paragraph 6 “The program skeleton is missing a funclet of the program, but includes a placeholder in place of the funclet. The program skeleton additionally includes instructions in place of the funclet. The instructions are operative to request the funclet when the program skeleton encounters the instructions.”), and a first small image of the computer system comprises the small stub function set and a small real function set (Paragraph 24 “The binary preparation operation 12 receives the original application 10 and yields an application skeleton 20 and funclets 34, all corresponding to the original application 10. The application skeleton 20 is based on the original application 10, but is missing the funclets 34.”);
loading the small stub function based on the call request (Paragraph 24 “The computing system runs the application skeleton 20 and uses an LDRRT (loader run time) module to get the funclets 34 as they are needed by the application skeleton 20.”).
Chen does not expressly disclose but Livshits discloses determining, based on the small stub function, whether to load a complementary real function corresponding to the small stub function wherein the complementary real function is a function in a complementary real function set (Abstract “A “code splitting tool” provides various techniques for automatically analyzing and rewriting existing browser-based applications to introduce dynamic code loading into those applications thereby improving perceived application responsiveness. Structural elements of application code (including functions, classes, etc.) are broken into small “stubs” with corresponding bodies. Rewritten applications then initially transfer only the portion of the code (including some combination of stubs and bodies) to the client as necessary for initial application execution. Additional stubs and/or bodies are then transferred either on-demand at runtime or in the background. Automated code rewriting proceeds without requiring any application-specific knowledge or changes to existing code prior to code rewriting. Further, the code splitting tool can tailor code rewriting to specific computing devices (computers, PDA's, cell phones, etc.), specific network conditions, and/or specific users, through an automated training process that creates clusters that control code downloads to optimize perceived application responsiveness.”), a first complementary image comprises both the complementary real function set and a complementary stub function set separately, the complementary stub function set corresponds to the small real function set and the complementary real function set corresponds to the small stub function set (Column 2, lines 40-54 “In other words, the code splitting tool provides various techniques for automatically rewriting applications to introduce dynamic code loading into those applications whether or not they were originally designed to implement dynamic code loading. Further, in various embodiments, the code splitting tool tailors application code rewriting to any combination of specific computing devices (computers, PDA's, cell phones, etc.), specific network conditions, and/or specific users, through an automated training process that evaluates application use in real world or simulated execution conditions. Consequently, in various embodiments, the code splitting tool is effective for selectively rewriting application code to optimize perceived responsiveness taking parameters such as network conditions, computing devices, and even individual users into account.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen to include the teachings of Livshits because it provides for the purpose of allowing the algorithm to decide whether to load a full code base or just a stub, which increases efficiency.
As per claim 2, Chan further discloses wherein determining whether to load the complementary real function based on the small stub function comprises:
attempting to run the small stub function according to an instruction of the first program, and in response to an exception being detected, loading the complementary real function (Paragraph 30 “The optimize and define funclets operation 312 preferably determines an optimum configuration of the application for use in a software on demand system. Among other things, the optimize and define funclets operation 312 defines the funclets 34. The optimize and define funclets operation 312 will be described in more detail below.”).
As per claim 3, Chan further discloses wherein the small real function set is a set of functions that are run by using target code in a process of running a target case set, and the complementary real function set is a set of functions that are not run by using the target code in the process of running the target case set (Paragraph 36 “Thus, the highest priority block is the one most frequently encountered during the user scenarios that produced the profile data 310, and the lowest priority block is the one least frequently encountered during the user scenarios that produced the profile data 310. Thus, more frequently encountered blocks are preferably processed before less frequently encountered blocks.”).
As per claim 4, Chan further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
loading a target function, wherein the target function comprises a target character string, a data volume of the target character string is less than a data volume of a source character string, the target code comprises the target function, the target code is obtained based on source code, the source code comprises a source function, and the source function comprises the source character string (Paragraph 44 “By inserting such referenced blocks, the funclets can include several blocks and still have only one entry point into the funclet. It is desirable to have larger funclets because larger funclets can be more effectively compressed and downloaded.”).
As per claim 5, Chan further discloses wherein after the target function has been loaded, the method further comprises:
sending the target character string to a second device, wherein the target character string is used by the second device to obtain the source character string based on a target correspondence and the target character string (Paragraph 44).
As per claim 6, Chan further discloses wherein loading the complementary real function comprises:
loading the complementary real function from the second device based on the small stub function (Paragraph 28).
As per claim 7, Chan further discloses wherein the first complementary image and the first small image are stored in different storage media of a first device (Paragraph 27).
As per claim 8, Chan further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
determining, based on the small stub function, to load the complementary real function, and sending related information of the complementary real function to the second device, wherein the related information is used by the second device to obtain a second small image based on the related information, and the second small image comprises the small real function set and the complementary real function (Paragraph 28).
As per claims 9-16, they are apparatus claims having similar limitations as cited in claims 1-9 and are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claims 17-20, they are medium claims having similar limitations as cited in claims 1-9 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUDRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3374. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Central Time.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571)272-4215. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights