DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The amendment filed on 02/25/2026. This action is made final.
Claims 2-20, 40, 42-63 are pending in the case. Claims 2, 40 and 42 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I having claims 2-20, 40, 42 in the reply filed on 07/11/2025 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Priority
Applicant’s claims for the benefit of U.S. Patent application No. 14/175,903 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,907,496) which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/762,763 filed 02/08/2013 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2, 5, 14-15, 18-20, 40, 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims as shown in the below table of U. S. Patent No. 11,907,496 (hereinafter “496).
Instant Application 18/375,884
Patent No. “496
Claim 2.
A method comprising:
- identifying, by a first system, first content received by a client computing device from a first source external to the first system;
- sending, by the first system, first instructions to the client computing device;
- causing, by the first system using the first instructions, the client computing device to execute a first modified version of the first content that is different from a version provided by the first source;
- identifying, by the first system, second content received by the client computing device from a second source different from the first source;
- sending, by the first system, second instructions to the client computing device; and
- causing, by the first system using the second instructions, the client computing device to execute a second modified version of the second content that is different from a version provided by the second source.
Claim 1.
A method of managing sources, comprising:
- identifying, by at least a first server, a first source at a first source server different from a first client computing device;
- determining, by at least the first server, first instructions effective to cause the first client computing device to execute first client-side code causing modification of code of the first source, wherein the first instructions are associated with the first source;
- sending, by at least the first server, the first instructions to the first client computing device, wherein execution of the first instructions cause the first client computing device to execute the first client-side code causing the modification of code of the first source, wherein an application of the first client computing device executes a first modified version of the first source that modifies at least one of a first functionality or a first appearance of the first source, wherein the modification of the code of the first source is not initiated, natively styled, and natively supported by a first entity controlling the first source, and wherein the first modified version is different than the first source.
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 14
Claim 1
Claim 15
Claim 4
Claim 18
Claim 7
Claim 19
Claim 3
Claim 20
Claim 1
Claim 40 (system claim similar to claim 2)
Claim 1
Claim 42 (method claim similar to claim 2)
Claim 1
As seen in the above table, the claims of the “496 patent contains almost all the elements of claims 2, 5, 14-15, 18-20, 40, 42 of the instant application. As such claims 2, 5, 14-15, 18-20, 40, 42 of the instant application are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. The instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the patent claim and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
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.
Claim 43 is 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.
The term “relative to” in claim 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relative to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 2-8, 14-15, 18, 40, 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Warren et al. (US 2013/0304797 A1, hereinafter Warren).
As to claim 2, Warren teaches:
A method (see ¶ 0007) comprising:
identifying, by a first system, first content received by a client computing device from a first source external to the first system (See Fig. 2, 5 and ¶ 0049-0052; the centralized portal 130 integrates the links into a user interface 500 and provides the user interface 500 to the client device 110, a user accesses the individual applications by clicking on the link or icon attributed to the application; the applications comprises a plurality the available hosted applications 150, the available internal application 160);
sending, by the first system, first instructions to the client computing device (see ¶ 0035; The provisioning module 230 also contains data that enables the application integration module 250 to configure the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 based on the particular user. For example, a user may have been purchased access to a basic version of cloud-based application 140b, while a second user may have purchased access to a deluxe version of the same application 140b which provides additional features not found in the basic version);
causing, by the first system using the first instructions, the client computing device to execute a first modified version of the first content that is different from a version provided by the first source (see ¶ 0035; a user may have been purchased access to a basic version of cloud-based application 140b, while a second user may have purchased access to a deluxe version of the same application 140b which provides additional features not found in the basic version. The provisioning module 230 instructs the application integration module 250 to enable the first user to have the limited set of functionality of the application 140b that is associated with the basic version, and the provisioning module 230 instructs the application integration module 250 to enable the second user to have the broader set of functionality of the application 140b that is associated with the deluxe version. In this manner, each user of the centralized portal 130 can have a customized, unique set of applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160, and features within those applications, based on a desired service level and/or cost);
identifying, by the first system, second content received by the client computing device from a second source different from the first source (See Fig. 5 and ¶ 0050-0052; the client device user can access any number of the application(s) 140a-140d, 150, and 160);
sending, by the first system, second instructions to the client computing device (see ¶ 0035; The provisioning module 230 also contains data that enables the application integration module 250 to configure the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 based on the particular user. For example, a user may have been purchased access to a basic version of cloud-based application 140b, while a second user may have purchased access to a deluxe version of the same application 140b which provides additional features not found in the basic version); and
causing, by the first system using the second instructions, the client computing device to execute a second modified version of the second content that is different from a version provided by the second source (see ¶ 0035, 0040, 0050-0052; the client device user can access any number of the application(s) 140a-140d, 150, and 160; therefore, the modification is done on the second application).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
causing, by the first system, the client computing device to send first data to the first source (see ¶ 0032-0034; identity data of the user at the client device); and
causing, by the first system, the client computing device to generate the first modified version of the first content based at least in part on response data received in response to the first data (see ¶ 0032-0035; the applications 140-140d, 150, and 160 are configured based on the particular user using the identity data).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
wherein the first content is executed by a first operating system of the first source and the second content is executed by a second operating system of the second source, and wherein the first modified version of the first content and the second modified version of the second content are executed via a browser-based application of the client computing device (see Fig. 1-2, 5 and ¶ 0025-0026).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
causing the first content to be launched in a first operating system on the first source in response to selection of the first content on the client computing device (see ¶ 0051; A user accesses the individual applications (e.g., CRM application in FIG. 5) by clicking on the link or icon attributed to the application. In some embodiments, the centralized portal 130 can open a new window (e.g., browser tab) that contains a direct link to the server on which the application is located. In some embodiments, the centralized portal 130 retrieves data and functionality from the application that was selected, and presents the retrieved information in a proprietary interface associated with the portal 130. An advantage of the latter approach is that the user interfaces for each of the applications can be designed with a similar "look and feel," enabling the user to have a higher comfort level and familiarity in interacting with the various applications--leading to increased productivity and a lesser need for individualized training for each application); and
causing the second content to be launched in a second operating system on the second source in response to selection of the second content on the client computing device (see ¶ 0051).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
sending, by the first system to the client computing device, second instructions causing the client computing device to transmit one or more inputs to a first webpage of the first source (see ¶ 0051; the centralized portal 130 retrieves data and functionality from the application that was selected, and presents the retrieved information in a proprietary interface associated with the portal 130. An advantage of the latter approach is that the user interfaces for each of the applications can be designed with a similar "look and feel," enabling the user to have a higher comfort level and familiarity in interacting with the various applications--leading to increased productivity and a lesser need for individualized training for each application).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
sending, by the first system to the client computing device, third instructions corresponding to a first workflow, the third instructions comprising: a first predefined instruction to retrieve the first content from the first source; and a second predefined instruction to retrieve the second content from the second source (see ¶ 0044; the application integration module 250 can execute complex data workflows that exchanges necessary data between any of the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 to which the advisor has access, ensuring the synchronization of the data without requiring manual intervention by the advisor).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
sending, by the first system to the client computing device, fourth instructions corresponding to template data, wherein the fourth instructions, when executed by the client computing device, cause the client computing device to incorporate a plurality of steps defined by the template data into the first workflow (see ¶ 0044; the application integration module 250 can execute complex data workflows that exchanges necessary data between any of the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 to which the advisor has access, ensuring the synchronization of the data without requiring manual intervention by the advisor).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
wherein the first source is a third party content server (see fig. 1-2 and ¶ 0029 the hosted applications are from a third-party or other sources), the method further comprising: causing, by the first system, the client computing device to modify the first content to display a portion of an interface of the first content that is different from a native display of the first content provided by the first source (see ¶ 0051).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
generating, by the first system, one or more first instructions, wherein execution of the one or more first instructions by the client computing device causes the client computing device to display the first modified version of the first content comprising a subset of functionality provided by the first source (see ¶ 0035; basic version, deluxe version versus full version from the host applications).
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
determining that access to the first content at the first source requires user authentication; and causing, by at least the first system, the client computing device to authenticate to the first source without displaying an authentication procedure on the client computing device (see ¶ 0033; Because each of the plurality of applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 can maintain a separate login account for the user, the identity data store 220 also contains each registered user's login credentials for the plurality of applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 to which the user has been granted access. As a result, the user needs only to provide his or her credentials related to the centralized portal 130 when logging in from the client device 110. When the user accesses one of the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160, the application integration module 250 seamlessly requests the user's individual credentials for that application (e.g., 140a) from the authentication/SSO module 210 and identity data store 220. The application integration module 250 then automatically logs in to the application 140a with the appropriate user credentials, and the user at the client device 110 does not have to enter any additional login information).
As to claim 40, claim 40 is directed to a system claim comprising a first computing system, the first computing system comprising at least one processor and non-transitory computer-readable memory, the non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor are effective to implement the method steps as claimed in claim 2; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (see Warren Figure 2).
As to claim 42, claim 42 is directed to a method claim for implementing the method steps as claimed in claim 2; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale. Further comprising:
wherein a first party owning the first content is different from a second party owning the first system (See Fig. 2, 5 and ¶ 0049-0052; the centralized portal 130 integrates the links into a user interface 500 and provides the user interface 500 to the client device 110, a user accesses the individual applications by clicking on the link or icon attributed to the application; the applications comprises a plurality the available hosted applications 150, the available internal application 160. Figure 1 shows the hosted applications 150 and/or cloud-based application 140 which owning the first content are different from the server 135 which owning the first system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Simmons (US 2013/0263035 A1; hereinafter Simmons)
As to claim 9, Warren teaches the method of claim 7. Warren further teaches sending, by the first system to the client computing device, fourth instructions associated with the first workflow (see ¶ 0044). Warren does not appear to teach, but Simmons is relied upon for teaching the limitations: wherein the fourth instructions cause the client computing device to reorder a sequence of the first workflow (Simmons: see ¶ 0034; the object-based workflow designer (1) may permit dynamic alterations to the workflow engine (4), such that the entire workflow process may be re-ordered or the steps rearranged without restarting the web/application server (3) or reinstalling the workflow engine (4)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Warren with the teachings of Simmons to provide a mechanism to enable workflow processes to reorder a sequence of the workflow as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Simmons of providing a mechanism to provide workflow processes in a portal environment that allows the workflow steps to be re-ordered; thus, enhance user experience with the workflow user interface (Simmons: see ¶ 0034).
As to claim 10, Warren teaches the method of claim 7. Warren/Simmons further teaches receiving, from the client computing device, a command to enter into an editing mode for the first workflow; receiving, from the client computing device, a request to retrieve third content from a third source; and sending, to the client computing device, one or more first instructions to modify the first workflow to retrieve the third content from the third source (Simmons: see ¶ 0034; the object-based workflow designer (1) may permit dynamic alterations to the workflow engine (4), such that the entire workflow process may be re-ordered or the steps rearranged without restarting the web/application server (3) or reinstalling the workflow engine (4)). Combining Warren/Simmons would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Claims 43, 49, 60-61 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Barabe et al. (US 2006/0136821 A1, hereinafter Barabe)
As to claim 43, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren does not appear to teach, but Barabe is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 43 comprising: wherein the first modified version of the first content comprises a portion of the first content being displayed in a different color relative to at least one other portion of the first content (Barabe: see ¶ 0043; the modified content in the document is highlighted. The highlighted content distinguishes the modified portion of the document from the rest of the document. In one embodiment, the modified document content is presented in a color that is visually distinct from the color of the non-modified content. In another embodiment, the modified document content is provided with a background color that distinguishes the modified content from the non-modified document content).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Warren with the teachings of Barabe to provide a mechanism to color the modified content as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Barabe of providing a mechanism to color the modified content portion to make it easier to distinguish from the non-modified content (Barabe: see ¶ 0041).
As to claim 49, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren and Barabe further teach: wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to navigate to a specific state or location within the first content that is not accessible via a direct URL provided by the first source, wherein the navigation is performed regardless of whether the first source natively supports deep linking to the specific state or location (Barabe: see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0032; tabs 370 that identify document pages where the highlighted content is located are presented in the margin of the document. The user may select a tab and be brought to the page that includes the highlighted content. For example, a user may easily determine that the document includes highlighted content on pages 1, 5 and 9 because tabs 370 identify those pages in the margin of the document. In yet another embodiment, the user may access commands to navigate highlighted content in order of appearance in the document or in chronological order based on when the content was modified). Thus, combining Warren and Barabe would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons set forth in claim 43.
As to claim 60, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren and Barabe further teach: wherein the first system coordinates actions across a plurality of browser tabs on the client computing device, wherein the first instructions cause modifications to content displayed in multiple tabs simultaneously or sequentially (Barabe: see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0032; tabs 370). Thus, combining Warren and Barabe would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons set forth in claim 43.
As to claim 61, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren and Barabe further teach: wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to extract data elements from the first content and the second content, and wherein the first modified version comprises an aggregated display of the extracted data elements from both the first source and the second source (Barabe: see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0032; the content combined the non-modified document content and modified document content which could be added by another user/source). Thus, combining Warren and Barabe would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons set forth in claim 43.
Claims 45, 47-48, 50-51, 54-58, 62 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Livshits et al. (US 2009/0292791 A1, hereinafter Livshits)
As to claim 45, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren does not appear to teach, but Livshits is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 45: wherein modification of the first content is performed entirely on the client computing device without transmitting the first content to the first system prior to or during the modification (see ¶¶ 0114-0116; in order to rewrite third party applications, one or more client-side Web browsers were chained to the proxy implementation of the code splitting tool as illustrated in FIG. 2. ¶ 0041; It should be noted that in the following paragraphs, the term "Web 2.0 application" or the like is generally used to refer to applications executed within a browser type application after being downloaded from a server to a client across a network such as the Internet. However, it should be clear that the code splitting tool described herein is not limited to Web 2.0 applications. Specifically, any web application that is designed to be executed within a browser-type environment can be rewritten by the code splitting tool to provide an improvement in perceived responsiveness, as described herein. ¶ 0027; it should be clear that in various embodiments, the code splitting tool is capable of creating a plurality of different versions of the original application. In this case, a specific version of the application is automatically selected for each particular client user depending upon the particular capabilities or characteristics of the client, the computing device being used by the client, and/or the current network conditions over which the client is requesting the application. ¶ 0066; different versions of the application).
Both references, each teaches an interface for accessing web-based applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have combined the teaching of Warren and Livshits to provide a mechanism to transmit portal content from a portal network to a browser client device and modify and execute the code on the client with client-side code. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and because Livshits discloses that one of the advantageous features of the rewriting capabilities of the code splitting tool is that these capabilities are applicable to existing application code without requiring any application-specific knowledge or any changes to existing code prior to the automated rewriting provided by the code splitting tool (Livshits: see ¶ 0024).
As to claim 47, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren and Livshits further teach:
wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to automatically populate one or more fields of the first content with data determined by the first system without requiring user entry into the one or more fields (Warren: see ¶ 0008; authenticating the user automatically for each of the available applications, ¶ 0033, 0042; automatically logs in to the application with the appropriate user credentials, and the user at the client device 110 does not have to enter any additional login information. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 48, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren and Livshits further teach: wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to extract a subset of data elements from the first content and process the subset of data elements locally on the client computing device for display in the first modified version (Warren: see ¶ 0035; basic version [~basic features are extract from the full version]. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 50, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren and Livshits further teach:
wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to automatically authenticate with the first source using stored credentials without requiring user input during the authentication (see ¶ 0008; authenticating the user automatically for each of the available applications, ¶ 0033, 0042; automatically logs in to the application with the appropriate user credentials, and the user at the client device 110 does not have to enter any additional login information. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 51, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren and Livshits further teach: wherein the first system translates a user request into the first instructions, wherein the user request is expressed in a format different from the first instructions, and wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to perform actions corresponding to the user request (Warren: see Figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0035, 0038; The application integration module 250 also handles the translation of data and commands between the centralized portal 130 and each of the individual applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160. Because the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 may be offered by many different service providers, the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160 may use different types of communications interfaces and protocols to provide access to the centralized portal 130. Also, in some cases, the applications 140a-140d and 150 reside on legacy systems that are not capable of communicating with the centralized portal 130 using current protocols or techniques. Therefore, the application integration module 250 is capable of adapting to establish communications channels with each of the applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160, regardless of the application's particular communication requirements). Livshits: ¶0027; the code splitting tool is capable of tailoring rewriting of the application code to any combination of specific computing devices (computers, PDA's, cell phones, etc.), specific network conditions, and/or specific users. Consequently, it should be clear that in various embodiments, the code splitting tool is capable of creating a plurality of different versions of the original application. In this case, a specific version of the application is automatically selected for each particular client user depending upon the particular capabilities or characteristics of the client, the computing device being used by the client, and/or the current network conditions over which the client is requesting the application). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 54, Warren teaches the method of claim 2. Warren and Livshits further teach: wherein the client computing device interprets the first instructions as a set of executable commands, wherein each command corresponds to a specific modification or action to be performed on the first content (Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 55, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren and Livshits further teach:
wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to dynamically generate one or more variables at runtime, wherein the one or more variables are used to access or authenticate with the first source (Warren: see ¶ 0008; authenticating the user automatically for each of the available applications, ¶ 0033, 0042; automatically logs in to the application with the appropriate user credentials, and the user at the client device 110 does not have to enter any additional login information. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 56, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren and Livshits further teach:
receiving, by the client computing device from the first system, updated instructions in real-time during execution, wherein the updated instructions modify behavior of the client computing device with respect to the first content (Warren: see ¶ 0010; updates the one or more applications available to be accessed by the user based on the request for access to an additional application not currently available to the user. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 57, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren and Livshits further teach:
wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to adapt execution based on a current state of the first content, wherein adapting the execution comprises modifying a sequence or type of actions performed on the first content (Warren: see ¶ 0028-0029, 0035, 0052; the user has complete control over the application 150 and can customize the application 150 to suit his or her needs. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45.
As to claim 58, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren and Livshits further teach:
wherein the first instructions comprise conditional logic, wherein execution of a portion of the first instructions is contingent upon evaluation of one or more conditions by the client computing device based on a state of the first content (Warren: see ¶ 0013, 0028-0029, 0035, 0052; customize the application. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45. The examiner notes the “contingent” limitation recited in the method claim 58.
As to claim 62, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren and Livshits further teach:
wherein at least a portion of the execution of the first modified version is performed by the client computing device without visual display of the portion to a user prior to display of a result of the execution (see ¶ 0008; authenticating the user automatically for each of the available applications, ¶ 0033, 0042; automatically logs in to the application with the appropriate user credentials, and the user at the client device 110 does not have to enter any additional login information. Livshits: the modification is done in the client device, see ¶ 0114-0116, 0041, 0027). Thus, combining Warren and Livshits would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 45
Claims 44, 46, 63 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Lawson (US 2014/0019230 A1, hereinafter Lawson).
As to claim 44, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren further teaches:
wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to simulate user interaction with interface elements of the first content, wherein the simulated user interaction is performed by code executing on the client computing device without user manipulation of the interface elements (Warren: see ¶ 0008; authenticating the user automatically for each of the available applications, ¶ 0033, 0042; automatically logs in to the application with the appropriate user credentials, and the user at the client device 110 does not have to enter any additional login information). In addition, Lawson is relied upon for teaching the limitation of claim 44: wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to simulate user interaction with interface elements of the first content, wherein the simulated user interaction is performed by code executing on the client computing device without user manipulation of the interface elements (Lawson: see ¶ 0088; the download link [~interface element] is activated without affirmative selection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have combined the teaching of Warren and Lawson to provide a mechanism to activate a user interface element without user manipulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and to enhance user experience (Lawson: see ¶ 0088).
As to claim 46, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren does not appear to teach, but Lawson is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 46: wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to activate a button element or link element within the first content without direct user interaction with the button element or link element (Lawson: see ¶ 0088; the download link [~interface element] is activated without affirmative selection). Thus, combining Warren and Lawson would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 44.
As to claim 63, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren does not appear to teach, but Lawson is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 63: wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to programmatically simulate user interaction with interface elements of the first content, wherein the simulated user interaction is executed by code without requiring contemporaneous user perception of the simulated user interaction (Lawson: see ¶ 0088; the download link [~interface element] is activated without affirmative selection). Thus, combining Warren and Lawson would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 44.
Claim 52 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Rhett Alden et al. (US 2006/0288110 A1, hereinafter Alden).
As to claim 52, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren does not appear to teach, but Alden is relied upon for teaching the limitation of claim 52: wherein the first instructions comprise a plurality of sequential steps, each step causing the client computing device to perform a predefined action on the first content or the second content (Alden: see Fig. 1, 6, ¶0029, and Fig. 2, ¶0029, and ¶0032-0037, showing the mechanism whereby the workflow engine within the Information System 110 shares workflow data among portal based browser clients 118A, 118B, and 118C, and the portal can instantiate the populate user interface elements such as list boxes and icons associated with the portal – workflow including sequential steps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Warren with the teachings of Alden to provide a mechanism to enable workflow processes among browser clients in a portal network and to instantiate user elements associated with the portal on the browser client. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Alden of providing a mechanism to provide workflow processes in a portal environment (¶0009-0012), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine Warren with Alden would be to provide relationships among the plurality of icons identified in Warren in a browser based application such that it would be easier to manage a plurality of applications in a portal based client browser.
Claim 53 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Clavel (US 9015692 B2, hereinafter Clavel).
As to claim 53, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren does not appear to teach, but Clavel is relied upon for teaching the limitation of claim 53: wherein the first instructions cause the client computing device to dynamically restyle a visual presentation of the first content to conform to a predetermined interface theme different from a native presentation of the first source (Clavel: see Col. 7, lines 22-32; tailoring appearance, look and feel of a generic application/content based on various factors… various themes. Col. 9, lines 46-64; custom configuration to tailor the appearance, look and feel of the requested generic application/content. Tailoring the appearance, look and feel of the requested generic application/content based on the determined custom configuration generates a customized application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Warren with the teachings of Clavel to provide a mechanism to customize the appearance of a generic application as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Clavel of providing a mechanism to tailor the appearance, look and feel of the requested application/content (Col. 9, lines 46-64), with a reasonable expectation of success; thus, enhance user experience with the user interface.
Claim 59 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Sanabria et al. (US 2007/0156584, hereinafter Sanabria).
As to claim 59, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Warren does not appear to teach, but Sanabria is relied upon for teaching the limitation of claim 59: storing, on the client computing device or by the first system, state information associated with execution of the first instructions, wherein the state information enables resumption of a workflow at a subsequent time (Sanabria: ¶ 0012; data for the state of the workflow such as property values, current activity, execution sequence, suspension information, time to resume, metadata, time stamps, and the like) is saved to the persistent store. ¶ 0037, 0047; the workflow instance can be serialized into a database from which it can be subsequently retrieved, deserialized and resumed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Warren with the teachings of Sanabria to provide a mechanism to enable resumption of a workflow as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Sanabria of providing a mechanism enable resumption of a workflow, with a reasonable expectation of success so that subsequent execution of the workflow can be carried out by a different user (Sanabria: see ¶ 0047).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13, 16-17, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the double patenting rejection if any.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued that claim 2 of the current application is patentably distinct from the reference claim of the ‘496 patent and request withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection (see remark page 11-12).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that a nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). In this case, the examiner provided the mapping of instant claim 2 and the patented claim 1 of the “496 patent and concluded that the instant claims 2, 5, 14-15, 18-20, 40, 42 are broader in every aspect than the patent claim. In other words, the patented claim recites other limitations that are not recited in the instant claim. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments regarding patented claim and the Warren/Livshits are not applicable; thus, are not persuasive.
With respect to 102 rejections, Applicants argued that limitations of claim 1 [intended to be claim 2] “causing, by the first system using the first instructions, the client computing device to execute a first modified version of the first content that is different from a version provided by the first source” are neither taught nor suggested by Warren (see remark page 12-14).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim is not limited to the client computing device doing the modification of the first content to produce a first modified version. All that recited in the claim are the client computing device execute a first modified version of the first content. In this case, Warren discloses that the user is only allowed to access the features [of the first content] that the user is entitled/purchased (see ¶ 0035; user may have been purchased access to a basic version of cloud-based application 140b, while a second user may have purchased access to a deluxe version of the same application 140b which provides additional features not found in the basic version. The provisioning module 230 instructs the application integration module 250 to enable the first user to have the limited set of functionality of the application 140b that is associated with the basic version, and the provisioning module 230 instructs the application integration module 250 to enable the second user to have the broader set of functionality of the application 140b that is associated with the deluxe version. In this manner, each user of the centralized portal 130 can have a customized, unique set of applications 140a-140d, 150, and 160, and features within those applications, based on a desired service level and/or cost). Clearly, the accessed version [basic version] is different from the full version before the modification.
For at least these reasons, the examiner maintains that claim 2 is anticipated by Warren.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179