DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
3. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-6 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Agarwal et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0413843; hereinafter referred to as Agarwal), in view of NPL - Lasse Linkola “DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MODULAR FRONTEND ARCHITECTURE ON EXISTING APPLICATION”; hereinafter referred to as Linkola.
As per claim 1, Agarwal discloses a method for adding a new component to a canvas definition, the method comprising:
determining a type of the new component (See p. [0004] – new component); determining an input and an output type of the new component (See p. [0033] – couple components based on type); creating a definition of the new component (See p. [0004, 0048] – created definition of model); creating a component factory (See p. [0048] - creating identification by type and reference).
Although Agarwal discloses the provision of “state” when validating for coupling components; Agarwal does not explicitly states - connecting to a state of an application using one or more provided hooks.
Linkola discloses a design and implementation of modular frontend architecture on applications, in which connection is provided to a state via hooks - connecting to a state of an application using one or more provided hooks (See page 6 – hooks).
Agarwal and Linkola are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Agarwal’s components definition and provision when adding components to canvas; and further combine it with Linkola’s JavaScript library for building user interfaces; thus, the combination allows for allows the creation of user-centric views by removing the arbitrary constraints imposed by canvas-type/hybrid-type approach (See Agarwal’s and Linkola’s abstracts/introduction, and background).
As per claim 2, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the new component is a parcel component (See Linkola’s page 32 – module bundlers).
As per claim 3, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the new component is initially not a parcel component, and the method comprises creating the parcel component (See Linkola’s pages 32-34 – creates bundler component).
As per claim 4, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the new component is not a parcel component, and the method further comprises: creating a component library; and adding the component library to a component runtime (See Linkola’s pages 34-38 – adding library).
As per claim 5, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the new component is authorable, and the method further comprises: creating an authored component; defining one or more authorable properties; and adding the authored component to a toolbar (See Linkola’s page 37 – defined properties and addition to toolbar).
As per claim 6, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the canvas definition is for use in an application in a canvas sandboxed in-frame (See Linkola’s pafge 36 - sandbox in-frame).
9. Claims 7-10 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Agarwal et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0413843; hereinafter referred to as Agarwal), in view of NPL - Lasse Linkola “DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MODULAR FRONTEND ARCHITECTURE ON EXISTING APPLICATION”; hereinafter referred to as Linkola, and in further view of Abrahami et al. (Patent No. US 11,875,104 B2; hereinafter referred to as Abrahami).
As per claim 7, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 6 (See claim 6 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103).
However, neither Agarwal nor Linkola explicitly state - wherein connecting to the state of the application using the one or more provided hooks is performed within the canvas sandboxed in-frame, such that the new component interacts with the application state without direct access to a hosting application.
Abrahami discloses - wherein connecting to the state of the application using the one or more provided hooks is performed within the canvas sandboxed in-frame, such that the new component interacts with the application state without direct access to a hosting application (See column 17, lines 11-16, and columns 27-28 – without direct access performed within the canvas sandboxed frame).
Agarwal, Linkola and Abrahami are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Agarwal’s components definition and provision when adding components to canvas; and further combine it with Linkola’s JavaScript library for building user interfaces; and further combine them with Abrahami’s on-demand web-server execution instance for website hosting with custom back-end/front -end functionality; thus, the combination allows for allows the creation of user-centric views by removing the arbitrary constraints imposed by canvas-type/hybrid-type approach, while allowing editing and the dynamic views which designers and users can access simultaneously (See Agarwal’s, Linkola’s and Abrahami’s abstracts/introduction, and background).
As per claim 8, Agarwal, Linkola and Abrahami disclose the method of claim 7 (See claim 7 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein connecting to a state of the application using one or more provided hooks is provided by a Front End Library initiated once the canvas sandboxed in-frame receives the canvas definition and a context, wherein the state of the application is created in the canvas sandboxed in-frame from the canvas definition and the context (See Abrahami’s Figs. 3-4 also, column 3, lines 55-65, column 4, lines 1-25 – Front-End library state created in canvas).
As per claim 9, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), the state of the application comprises a canvas-defined application state that includes state information provided as part of the canvas definition and exchanged between the new component and a hosting application via an event framework (See column 36, lines 20-30 – definition and exchange between components and a hosting app).
As per claim 10, Agarwal and Linkola disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein connecting to the state of the application using the one or more provided hooks is performed after creating the component factory, and the one or more provided hooks are used to integrate the new component with the application state during component development (See Abrahami’s column 30, lines 16-25, and column 31, lines 43-51 – after component factory is generated).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. In these arguments applicant relies on the amended claims and not the original ones. See above rejections under 35 USC § 103 for response to arguments.
11. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571)272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
06/10/2026.
Prosecution Insights