DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10 and 14 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 final office action is in response to the applicant’s response received on 07/09/2026, for the non-final office action mailed on 02/10/2026.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended claim invention are not directed to a mental process, see applicant’s remarks pp. 8-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees as determining that the element is a file download element when a tag name of the element is “input” and the element has a “download” attribute relates to an abstract idea which can be performed by a developer obsercing the element on the page, determining, based on the x-y coordinates, an element on the web page by executing document.getElementFromPoint(x,y) relates to generic computing component being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a user operation instruction stored in a body of an HTTP request, the user operation instruction including an operation type and x-y coordinates; determining, based on the x-y coordinates, an element on the web page by executing document.getElementFromPoint(x,y); in response to determining that the element is the file download element, receiving a request to download a file corresponding to the web page relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and transmitting, to the communication terminal, the image data corresponding to the web page; transmitting, to the communication terminal, an inquiry request including a key-value pair “key=Inquiry, value=”FreeSpace”, transmitting, to the external web server, an HTTP request using a HEAD method and acquiring header data without acquiring body data of the file, the header data including a content-length indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure, wherein the information indicating the download failure is transmitted using a key-value pair “key=Error, value=Download” relates to insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicant further argues the limitations are not well-understood, routine or conventional, see applicant’s remarks pp. 11-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the limitations receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a user operation instruction stored in a body of an HTTP request, the user operation instruction including an operation type and x-y coordinates; determining, based on the x-y coordinates, an element on the web page by executing document.getElementFromPoint(x,y); in response to determining that the element is the file download element, receiving a request to download a file corresponding to the web page relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements amount to well-understood, routine activities as seen in court cases Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues the claimed invention is necessarily rooted in computer technology and are not directed to an abstract idea, see applicant’s remarks pp. 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees the claim is directed to an abstract idea regarding claim limitations determining a free space of the image generation system; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; if the free space of the image generation system is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded and the free space of the communication terminal is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: if at least one of the free space of the image generation system and the free space of the communication terminal is less than the size of the file to be downloaded performing control to. Comparing can be done by a human checking the space remaining on a disk drive and checking the size of the file and comparing whether or not there is enough space for the downloaded file. Furthermore, acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/09/2026 with respect to rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendments. The rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Examiner has determined that claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 10is directed to a method and claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claims1, 10 and 11 recites determining that the element is a file download element when a tag name of the element is “input” and the element has a “download” attribute; determining a free space of the image generation system; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; if the free space of the image generation system is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded and the free space of the communication terminal is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: if at least one of the free space of the image generation system and the free space of the communication terminal is less than the size of the file to be downloaded performing control to:. That is, other than a generic computer, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally. For example, a user can determine not to download a file if they see that the free space is less than the size of the file to be downloaded. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the category of an abstract idea for a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 10 and 11 recites an information processing system including an image generation system configured to communicate with a communication terminal, the information processing system comprising: one or more processors, and at least one memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the image generation system to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the communication terminal, information for accessing a web page; obtaining the web page for the external web server based on the information for accessing the web page; generating image data corresponding to the web page; transmitting, to the communication terminal the image data corresponding to the web page; receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a user operation instruction stored in a body of an HTTP request, the user operation instruction including an operation type and x-y coordinates; determining, based on the x-y coordinates, an element on the web page by executing document.getElementFromPoint(x,y); in response to determining that the element is the file download element, receiving a request to download a file corresponding to the web page; transmitting, to the communication terminal, an inquiry request including a key-value pair “key=Inquiry, value=”FreeSpace” and acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; transmitting, to the external web server, an HTTP request using a HEAD method and acquiring header data without acquiring body data of the file, the header data including a content-length indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file, wherein the information enabling the communication terminal to download the file comprises a storage destination uniform resource locator (URL) and is transmitted using a key-value pair “key=FileStored, value=[URL]”; and if at least one of the free space of the image generation system and the free space of the communication terminal is less than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: not download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure, wherein the information indicating the download failure is transmitted using a key-value pair “key=Error, value=Download”. Claim limitation an information processing system including an image generation system configured to communicate with a communication terminal, the information processing system comprising: the image generation system, wherein the image generation system includes and in response to determining that the element is the file download element, receiving a request to download a file corresponding to the web page relates to field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); one or more processors; and at least one memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the image generation system to perform operations comprising and determining, based on the x-y coordinates, an element on the web page by executing document.getElementFromPoint(x,y) relates to generic computing component being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), receiving, from the communication terminal, information for accessing a web page; obtaining the web page from an external web server based on the information for accessing the web page; receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a user operation instruction stored in a body of an HTTP request, the user operation instruction including an operation type and x-y coordinates; acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; download the file from the external web server; not download the file from the external web server, these limitation relate to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), generating image data corresponding to the web page relates to insignificant extra-solution display activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), transmitting, to the communication terminal, the image data corresponding to the web page; transmitting, to the communication terminal, an inquiry request including a key-value pair “key=Inquiry, value=”FreeSpace”, transmitting, to the external web server, an HTTP request using a HEAD method and acquiring header data without acquiring body data of the file, the header data including a content-length indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure, wherein the information indicating the download failure is transmitted using a key-value pair “key=Error, value=Download” relates to insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The concept described in claims 1, 10 and 11 are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2 and 3 are further related to metal process regarding element being pressed and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering when inquiring (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 4 further relates insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering when acquiring information (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), determining the free space is greater than the size of the file relates to an abstract idea and downloading relates to data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 5 relates to field of use/technological environment regarding a URL (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and notifying relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 6 relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 7 relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data output and display (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 8 relates to an abstract idea determining URL received and downloading relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 9 relates to data outputting and displaying which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 12 recites relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 13 recites an abstract idea. Claim 14 recites technical use/technological environment , see MPEP 2106.05(h). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of these claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here in step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in step 2B. The additional elements amount to well-understood, routine activities as seen in court cases Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claims are ineligible.
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 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
Prosecution Insights