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 action is responsive to amendment filed 2/12/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims. Claims 14-34 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting rejection of 6/5/24 remains and is incorporated herein by reference.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/12/26, with respect to the previous rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied references do not teach the amended limitations.
In reply, Firstly, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Secondly, Thompson teaches generating an indication of priority/preference that specifies which content from a second page is prefetched, and teaches accessing a prioritized list of prefetch tags in an order based on the priority level of each tag (see Thompson, at least ¶s 17,18 & Figure 1, in addition to the below rejection). Furthermore, Milener teaches the prefetching is based on end user/browsing information (see Milener, at least ¶s 80,101, in addition to the below rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 14:
Lines 7-9 recite: “… a second content page”, twice. However, it is unclear if these are referring to the same or different content pages, or if there are multiple instances/copies of the second content page.
Line 13 recites: “… the second content page”. However, it is unclear which instance of the previously recited second content pages this is referring to.
Lines 22-23 recites: “… loading second the content page”. The placement of “the” is grammatically incorrect, and also unclear which of the previous second content pages is being referred to.
Independent Claims 22 & 30 are rejected based on the same rationale given for claim 14 above.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiency of their respective independent claims and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14-28,30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US Publication 20050138143) in view of Proctor (US Publication 20080301079) in further view of Nguyen (US Publication 20020147788) in further view of Milener et al (US Publication 20130055395).
In reference to claim 14, Thompson teaches a system for configuring prefetching of a content item by an end user device, the system comprising: one or more processors programmed to:
generate functionality for a user to: configure a load rule to indicate that an end user device is to (see at least ¶ 13 & ¶ 16 lines 1-8, where Thompson teaches a data creator/user, configuring a web page definition with pre-fetch instructions for a device)
generate an indication of preference that a content item associated with a second content page is prefetched, (see at least ¶ 17, where Thompson teaches generating an indication of priority/preference that content from a second page is prefetched)
access a prioritized list of prefetch tags comprising a plurality of prefetch tags in an order based on a priority associated with each prefetch tag of the plurality of prefetch tags, (see at least ¶ 18 & Figure 1, where Thompson teaches accessing a prioritized list of prefetch tags in an order based on the priority level of each tag)
based on the indication, prior to loading a content page by the end user device, fetch a content item via a computer network and load the content, (see at least ¶ 16 lines 7-17, where Thompson teaches a based on the indication of priorities, the prefetch tag/rule defines how a content/item is to be loaded/cached before loading and executing the page) and
delay execution of the content item until loading the content page by the end user device, (see at least ¶ 26 lines 10-14 and ¶ 27, where Thompson teaches the content is prefetched but not processed before loading the other portions of the page) and
provide an input to indicate that the end user device is to execute the content item to interact with the content page upon loading of the content page by the end user device, (see at least ¶ 17, where Thompson teaches a data creator defining/inputting priority levels and order sequence to process the content relative to the page, and at least ¶ 13 lines 9-14 & ¶ 25, where Thompson teaches an input for the device to review/execute the content in relation to the loaded page) and
communicate, via the computer network, configuration data indicative of the load rule configured; (see at least ¶s 13,16, where Thompson teaches communicating the prefetch definitions and instructions) and
a memory device in communication with the one or more processors, the memory device being configured to store the configuration data (see ¶s 35-36).
Although Thompson teaches functionality for a user to configure a prefetch tag/rule (see Thompson, at least ¶ 16-17), Thompson fails to explicitly teach: generate a user interface comprising functionality for a user to configure a load rule; and output the user interface for presentation to the user. However, Proctor teaches generating a user interface to define a ruleflow, and outputting the user interface for presentation (see Proctor, at least Abstract & ¶ 58). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Proctor for the purpose of facilitating the placement and sequencing of instructions in a manner that is visually intuitive for users.
Although Thompson teaches prefetch tags with different priority, Thompson fails to explicitly teach wherein the content item is associated with a priority indicated by the prioritized list of prefetch tags, and wherein the content item is fetched prior to fetching a second content item associated with a second priority than the content item based on the priority being a higher priority than the second priority in the prioritized list. However, Nguyen teaches dynamic preloading of web pages (see Nguyen, at least Abstract & ¶s 8-10). Nguyen further teaches an interface for accessing a set of prefetch/preloading preferences based on priorities associated with the preferences (see Nguyen, at least ¶s 48,50-52), and also teaches content items associated with the priorities as indicated by the preferences, and the pages are fetched based on an order of priority (see Nguyen, at least ¶s 52,54,64-66). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Nguyen for the purpose of providing an enhanced browsing experience for the user which loads web content in an interactive and quicker way.
Thompson fails to explicitly teach the prefetch is based on end user information associated with a second content page, and fails to explicitly teach fetch a content item associated with the second content page, for loading and executing the second content page; and fails to explicitly teach wherein the load rule is usable to control when the end user device fetches the content item and when the end user device executes the content item. However, Milener teaches the prefetching is based on end user/browsing information (see Milener, at least ¶s 80,101). Milener further teaches prefetch rules/template configured for a first/browser page for which prior to loading a second/target page, fetches content associated with the second/target page (see Milener, at least Abstract & ¶s 76,77,79). Additionally, Milener further teaches the load rule/template is used to control when and how the target content is fetched and loaded/executed (see Milener, at least ¶s 78,84-86,101). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Milener for the purpose of providing an enhanced browsing experience for the user which loads web content in an optimal way.
In reference to claim 15, this is taught by Thompson, at least ¶s 29-30, which teaches fetching content in relation to user interactions with portions of the page.
In reference to claim 16, this is taught by Proctor, at least ¶ 60 lines 3-13, which teaches the user interface including functionality for a user to identify a sequence of operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Proctor in accordance to the rationale given for claim 14.
In reference to claim 17, this is taught by Proctor, at least ¶ 58 lines 5-16, which teaches the user interface having functionality for the user to select items to be configured into the ruleflow. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Proctor in accordance to the rationale given for claim 14.
In reference to claim 18, this is taught by Proctor, at least ¶ 60 lines 8-16, which teaches the user interface having functionality for the user to select different items for configuring ruleflows. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Proctor in accordance to the rationale given for claim 14.
In reference to claim 19, this is taught by Proctor, at least ¶ 63 lines 1-13, which teaches a user interface having functionality for the user to select the order of execution. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Proctor in accordance to the rationale given for claim 14.
In reference to claim 20, this is taught by Milener, at least ¶s 78,123, which teaches a server configured to instruct the user browser to fetch content according to the prefetch load rule/template. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Milener in accordance to the rationale given for claim 14.
In reference to claim 21, this is taught by Thompson, at least ¶s 27,30, which teaches loading the content item with respect to the page by performing load operations with respect to the page.
In reference to claim 34, this is taught by Milener, at least ¶s 76,77,128, which teaches the first and second pages are associated with URL links for web navigation. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Thompson based on the teachings of Milener in accordance to the rationale given for claim 14.
Claims 22-28,30-33 are slight variations of the rejected claims 14-21,34 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Forms 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights