DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 03/11/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 14 and 16-19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-25 have been added. Claims 1-13, 15, and 20-25 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 22-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22:
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a keyword” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of the same claim).
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a URL” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of the same claim).
Claim 24:
Line 6 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a keyword” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of parent claim 22).
Line 6 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a URL” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of parent claim 22).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 15, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For example, as to independent claims 1, 12, and 20, even though the original specification does mention once a contingent scenario involving a “multi-core CPU” wherein “occurrence of frame freezing can be reduced” (Specification: ¶ 66), the original Specification does not appear to have sufficient support for the newly added claimed limitation “the first rendering process and the second rendering process being performed on respective processing units.”
Moreover, as to dependent claim 24, the original specification does not appear to possess sufficient support for the limitation “a third rendering process different from the first rendering process and the second rendering process.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Application Pub. No. CN112331235A (which, for purposes of prior art analysis, will be mapped to its English-language equivalent US Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0059097, hereinafter “Zhang”).
As to independent claims 1, 12, and 20, Zhang shows a sub-application [Abstract] running method, an apparatus, and a concomitant non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [¶ 02], comprising:
obtaining page data of a target sub-application [“sub-application” (¶ 49)] in response to an instruction to run the target sub-application on a target operating system, a runtime environment of the target sub-application being based on a parent application [native/main application (¶ 48)], the page data of the target sub-application including native component data [“native component” (¶ 55) data] and non-native component data [“non-native component” (¶¶ 112-115)];
rendering, via a browser, the native component data via a first rendering process and rendering, via the browser, the non-native component data via a second rendering process, to obtain a display page of the target sub-application, the browser being executed in the target operating system, the first rendering process and the second rendering process being performed on respective processing units [the first rendering process and the second rendering process being performed on respective processing units (¶¶ 197, 200, & 211)]; and displaying the display page of the target sub-application based on the browser [“Same-layer rendering: it refers to that a native component is directly rendered to a WebView (webpage view) level through a certain technical means, at the moment, the native component layer does not exist, and the native component is directly mounted to a WebView node. In the embodiment of this application, the playing interface of the target multimedia content is displayed in the sub-application page of the sub-application, and in the rendering process, the playing interface and the sub-application page are obtained through same-layer rendering.” (¶¶ 55)
“According to the embodiment of this application, the sub-application and the native application interact through a browser component in an underlying operating system. In this way, the underlying function of the operating system is effectively utilized, so that the efficiency of data transmission between the sub-application and the native application is higher{…}
By taking the sub-application serving as the mini program as an example, FIG. 4 is the schematic diagram of the interaction flow between the mini program and the native application in the embodiment of this application, and the sub-application includes a mini program 410, an operating system 420 and a native application 430. The mini program 410 is capable of receiving the operation request of the user on the target multimedia content 411 and giving a response. In the operating system 420, the browser component includes a WebView 421 and a Webkit 422. The WebView 421 is a control for displaying a web page based on the Webkit 422.
For example, when the user taps to open a certain webpage and performs operation on the target multimedia content 411 on the webpage through the mini program 410, an application code of the mini program 410 is loaded to the WebView 421 to run, and at the moment, the mini program 410 will transmit the object creation instruction to the native application 430 through the Webkit 422 according to the received operation request. Specifically, the object creation instruction is transmitted in a form of a JS message.” (¶¶ 87-89) | See also figs. 6-7; ¶¶ 112-115.].
As to dependent claims 2 and 13, Zhang further shows:
the native component data is of a native component in the target operating system; and the rendering includes rendering the native component data in the page data by the browser [“{…} a native component is directly rendered to a WebView (webpage view) level {…}” (¶ 55)
“{…} In the operating system 420, the browser component includes a WebView 421 and a Webkit 422. The WebView 421 is a control for displaying a web page based on the Webkit 422.” (¶ 88)].
As to dependent claim 3, Zhang further shows:
displaying at least one candidate sub-application identifier based on the browser; and in response to a user selection of one of the at least one candidate sub-application identifier, generating the instruction to run the target sub-application corresponding to the one of the at least one candidate sub-application identifier [a user may select a displayed sub-application identifier (like a graphical representation of the sub-application | ¶¶ 49 & 57) to run said sub-application (¶¶ 49, 57, & 89)].
As to dependent claims 4 and 15, Zhang further shows:
the rendering comprises: rendering the native component data via the first rendering process to obtain a first display page corresponding to the native component data, rendering the non-native component data via the second rendering process to obtain a second display page corresponding to the non-native component data, and determining the display page of the target sub-application based on the first display page corresponding to the native component data and the second display page corresponding to the non-native component data [“Same-layer rendering” comprises rendering a display page of a target sub-application based on the first display page corresponding to the native component data and the second display page corresponding to the non-native component data (¶¶ 55 & 112-115). See also figs. 6-7; ¶¶ 87-89.].
As to dependent claim 6, Zhang further shows:
the rendering comprises: rendering the native component data via the first rendering process to obtain the display page corresponding to the native component data, and rendering the non-native component data on the display page corresponding to the native component data via the second rendering process to obtain the display page of the target sub-application [“Same-layer rendering” comprises rendering the native component data via a first rendering process to obtain a display page corresponding to the native component data, and rendering the non-native component data on the display page corresponding to the native component data via a second rendering process to obtain the display page of the target sub-application (¶¶ 55 & 112-115). See also figs. 6-7; ¶¶ 87-89.].
As to dependent claim 7, Zhang further shows:
the rendering comprises: rendering the non-native component data via the second rendering process to obtain the display page corresponding to the non-native component data, and rendering the native component data on the display page corresponding to the non-native component data via the first rendering process to obtain the display page of the target sub-application [“Same-layer rendering” rendering the non-native component data via a second rendering process to obtain a display page corresponding to the non-native component data, and rendering the native component data on the display page corresponding to the non-native component data via a first rendering process to obtain the display page of the target sub-application (¶¶ 55 & 112-115). See also figs. 6-7; ¶¶ 87-89.].
As to dependent claim 8, Zhang further shows:
wherein the obtaining the page data comprises: obtaining logic code of the target sub-application based on a main process; in a running environment for executing the logic code, running the logic code of the target sub-application based on a service process of the target sub-application; and obtaining the page data of the target sub-application based on the main process and a running result of the logic code of the target sub-application [obtaining the page data comprises obtaining logic/function code of the target sub-application based on a main/native process; in a running environment for executing the logic code, running the logic code of the target sub-application based on a service process of the target sub-application; and obtaining the page data of the target sub-application based on the main process and a running result of the logic code of the target sub-application (¶¶ 29, 87-89, & 112-115)].
As to dependent claim 9, Zhang further shows:
wherein the logic code of the target sub-application is compiled based on an application programming interface (API) related to the target operating system, and the API related to the target operating system is compiled based on the running environment of a just-in-time compiled coding language by using a compiled coding language [“{…} the sub-application is capable of transmitting a JS message containing the object calling instruction to the native application, analyzing the internal memory address and the class name by the native application according to the JS message, then calling the native object, executing the function code of the native object, performing corresponding processing, and returning an execution result to the sub-application.
Specifically, after receiving the JS message, the plug-in the native application is capable of automatically distributing to the target API used for calling the native object to realize simple expansion of a large number of APIs during distribution and improve the audio and video editing control efficiency. {…}” (¶¶ 83-84)
“For example, when the user taps to open a certain webpage and performs operation on the target multimedia content 411 on the webpage through the mini program 410, an application code of the mini program 410 is loaded to the WebView 421 to run, and at the moment, the mini program 410 will transmit the object creation instruction to the native application 430 through the Webkit 422 according to the received operation request. Specifically, the object creation instruction is transmitted in a form of a JS message.
The native application 430 is capable of analyzing the parameter information in the object creation instruction according to the received JS message, judging which target API is called according to the analyzed parameter information, and then creating the native object. That is, the native objects are in one-to-one correspondence with the parameter information. For example, according to the class name included in the parameter information, the created native object can be any one of a name of coding and decoding 431, a name of clipping 432, a name of speed change 433, a name of sticker 434, a name of special effect 435 and a name of template 436.” (¶¶ 89-90) | See also ¶¶ 53, 67, & 111].
As to dependent claim 11, Zhang further shows:
the display page of the target sub-application includes a quick response code (QR code); and the method further comprises: in response to obtaining a code scanning confirmation instruction of the parent application for the QR code, displaying a jump page of the display page of the target sub-application based on the browser [the display page of the target sub-application includes QR/”two-dimensional” code; and in response to obtaining a code scanning confirmation instruction of the parent application for the QR code, displaying a jump page of the display page of the target sub-application based on the browser (¶¶ 49 & 57)].
As to dependent claim 25, Zhang further shows:
wherein the determining the display page comprises one of: superimposing the first display page corresponding to the native component data and the second display page corresponding to the non-native component data to obtain the display page of the target sub-application; and stitching the first display page corresponding to the native component data and the second display page corresponding to the non-native component data to obtain the display page of the target sub-application [the determining the display page comprises at least stitching/combining/uniting the first display page corresponding to the native component data and the second display page corresponding to the non-native component data to obtain the display page of the target sub-application (¶ 55)].
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.
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.
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 5, 10, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Application Pub. No. CN112331235A (which, for purposes of prior art analysis, will be mapped to its English-language equivalent US Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0059097, hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Simons et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0263917, hereinafter “Simons”).
As to dependent claim 5, Zhang, does not appear to explicitly recite “the non-native component data includes at least one piece of inner frame data” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Simons shows:
wherein the non-native component data includes at least one piece of inner frame data [e.g. iFrame data/code (¶ 69)], each piece of inner frame data representing content data of one page; and the rendering the non-native component data comprises: rendering the each piece of inner frame data via each second rendering process to obtain the second display page corresponding to the each piece of inner frame data, and determining the display page corresponding to the non-native component data based on the second display page corresponding to the each piece of inner frame data [“To prevent or at least reduce the likelihood of operations from one container mistakenly or maliciously impacting the functioning of another container or some other part of the improved computing system 112, each runtime environment container 180 is formed as a secure container (e.g., a sandbox, web security sandbox, quarantine space, a “Node.js container,” and the like). In at least some cases, the secure container is formed as an iFrame within a frame. In at least some cases, such iFrame is formed as a component of the first network-accessible server resource 194 a in the browser window 192 (e.g., an HTML element).” (¶ 69)
“{…} An iFrame 720 is initialized, and once the iFrame 720 loads, the iFrame 720 installs ServiceWorker 724 on Window 722 of iFrame 720. After the ServiceWorker 724 is installed, the local server is ready to begin receiving requests (e.g., HTTP requests, web socket requests, or other local server requests), and the local server waits until they are received. Upon starting, the local server can be accessed in a browser via, for example, the browser's second visible window 706 (e.g., the second domain, TAB2).” (¶ 90)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Simons before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Simons’s inner frame data techniques into Zhang. The rationale to do so would have been that “[in] this way, a same set of arbitrary, untrusted code that accesses operating system APIs can be executed by either or both a conventional web server 70 of a remote computing server 18 and an improved web browser 140 operating on an improved local computing device 112” {which would} “prevent or at least reduce the likelihood of any one of these operations from mistakenly or maliciously impacting the functioning of another” (Simons: ¶ 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Simons in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 5.
As to dependent claim 10, Zhang further shows:
wherein the main process and the service process of the target sub-application are run based on the running environment of a just-in-time compiled coding language [“{…} the sub-application is capable of transmitting a JS message containing the object calling instruction to the native application, analyzing the internal memory address and the class name by the native application according to the JS message, then calling the native object, executing the function code of the native object, performing corresponding processing, and returning an execution result to the sub-application.
Specifically, after receiving the JS message, the plug-in the native application is capable of automatically distributing to the target API used for calling the native object to realize simple expansion of a large number of APIs during distribution and improve the audio and video editing control efficiency. {…}” (¶¶ 83-84)
“For example, when the user taps to open a certain webpage and performs operation on the target multimedia content 411 on the webpage through the mini program 410, an application code of the mini program 410 is loaded to the WebView 421 to run, and at the moment, the mini program 410 will transmit the object creation instruction to the native application 430 through the Webkit 422 according to the received operation request. Specifically, the object creation instruction is transmitted in a form of a JS message.
The native application 430 is capable of analyzing the parameter information in the object creation instruction according to the received JS message, judging which target API is called according to the analyzed parameter information, and then creating the native object. That is, the native objects are in one-to-one correspondence with the parameter information. For example, according to the class name included in the parameter information, the created native object can be any one of a name of coding and decoding 431, a name of clipping 432, a name of speed change 433, a name of sticker 434, a name of special effect 435 and a name of template 436.” (¶¶ 89-90) | See also ¶¶ 53, 67, & 111]{…}
However, Zhang does not appear to explicitly recite that “the main process communicates with the service process of the target sub-application through sockets” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Simons shows:
wherein the main process and the service process of the target sub-application are run based on the running environment of a just-in-time compiled coding language [“The JavaScript interpreter 56 is software executed to interpret JavaScript code embedded in web pages. JavaScript is an object-oriented scripting language developed to allow web pages to go beyond static HTML/CSS content and add simple animations, video games, user interactions, and the like. JavaScript facilitates the addition of interactive user behavior to web pages. Beyond websites and interactive user applications, software developers can also use JavaScript to build simple web servers and develop the back-end infrastructure using Node.js.” (¶ 21)
“{…} a server-side JavaScript runtime environment 80 (i.e., a “container”). The server-side JavaScript runtime environment 80 includes a JavaScript engine 82, a Node.js binding module 84, a Node.js core library 86, and a set of asynchronous input/output (I/O) 88 utilities.” (¶ 27)], and
the main process communicates with the service process of the target sub-application through sockets [“{…} The web socket API of a convention browser engine is overridden by the improved browser engine 146 processes (e.g., scripting language interpreter 156), which permit direct communication with one or more locally instantiated scripting language server processes 200 a, 200 b, 200 n (e.g., TCP servers). Succinctly, the embodiment of FIG. 7 teaches a virtualized TCP network stack that can instantiate and communicate with a local HTTP server and web sockets from within an improved web browser 140 {…}” (¶ 78) | See also ¶¶ 32, 66, & 198.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Simons before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Simons’s sockets-based communication techniques into Zhang. The rationale to do so would have been that “[in] this way, a same set of arbitrary, untrusted code that accesses operating system APIs can be executed by either or both a conventional web server 70 of a remote computing server 18 and an improved web browser 140 operating on an improved local computing device 112” {which would} “prevent or at least reduce the likelihood of any one of these operations from mistakenly or maliciously impacting the functioning of another” (Simons: ¶ 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Simons in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 10.
As to dependent claim 21, Zhang further shows wherein the target operating system is a multi-user and multi-task operating system that supports multi-central processing units (Zhang: ¶¶ 87-88, 197, 200, & 211). Nonetheless, Zhang does not appear to explicitly recite that “the target operating system is a multi-user and multi-task operating system based on a portable operating system interface (POSIX) that supports multi-threading and multi-central processing units (CPUs)” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Simons shows:
wherein the target operating system is a multi-user and multi-task operating system based on a portable operating system interface (POSIX) that supports multi-threading and multi-central processing units (CPUs) [Simons shows that the target operating system is a multi-user and multi-task operating system based on a portable operating system interface (POSIX) that supports multi-threading and multi-central processing units (Simons: ¶¶ 32, 66, 143, & 199)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Simons before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Simons’ POSIX/multi-threading teachings into Zhang. The rationale for doing so would have been to aid Zhang so that it “can be executed by either or both a conventional web server 70 of a remote computing server 18 and an improved web browser 140 operating on an improved local computing device 112.” (Simons: ¶ 32), which may be “useful in industrial applications, military applications, commercial applications, educational applications, or any other environment” (Simons: ¶ 66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Simons in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 21.
As to dependent claim 22, Zhang shows a domain name and URL functionalities (Zhang: ¶¶ 49 & 63). Nonetheless, Zhang does not appear to explicitly recite “wherein a first domain name is assigned to a keyword of a uniform resource locator (URL) in the native component data, a second domain name is assigned to a keyword of a URL in the non-native component data, and the first domain name and the second domain name are different” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Simons shows:
wherein a first domain name is assigned to a keyword of a uniform resource locator (URL) in the native component data, a second domain name is assigned to a keyword of a URL in the non-native component data, and the first domain name and the second domain name are different [Simons shows wherein a first domain name is assigned to a keyword of a uniform resource locator (URL) in the native component data, a second domain name is assigned to a keyword of a URL in the non-native component data, and the first domain name and the second domain name are different (Simons: ¶¶ 10-14, 18-19, 28, 60-63, & 152-153)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Simons before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Simons’ domain name/URL techniques into Zhang. The rationale for doing so would have been that now Zhang “can be executed by either or both a conventional web server 70 of a remote computing server 18 and an improved web browser 140 operating on an improved local computing device 112.” (Simons: ¶ 32), which may be “useful in industrial applications, military applications, commercial applications, educational applications, or any other environment” (Simons: ¶ 66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Simons (hereinafter, the “Zhang-Simons” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 22.
As to dependent claim 23, Zhang-Simons further shows:
wherein the second domain name is assigned to keywords of URLs in multiple pieces of inner frame data in the non-native component data, and the keywords of the URLs include the keyword of the URL in the non-native component data [the second domain name is assigned to keywords of URLs in multiple pieces of inner frame data in the non-native component data, and the keywords of the URLs include the keyword of the URL in the non-native component data (Zhang: ¶¶ 49 & 63 | Simons: ¶¶ 10-14, 18-19, 28, 60-63, & 152-153)].
As to dependent claim 24, Zhang-Simons further shows:
wherein the second domain name is assigned to the keyword of the URL in a first piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data, the first piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data is rendered in the second rendering process, a third domain name is assigned to a keyword of a URL in a second piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data, the second piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data is rendered in a third rendering process different from the first rendering process and the second rendering process, and the third domain name is different from the first domain name and the second domain name [the second domain name is assigned to the keyword of the URL in a first piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data, the first piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data is rendered in the second rendering process, a third domain name is assigned to a keyword of a URL in a second piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data, the second piece of inner frame data in the non-native component data is rendered in a third rendering process different from the first rendering process and the second rendering process, and the third domain name is different from the first domain name and the second domain name (Zhang: ¶¶ 49 & 63 | Simons: ¶¶ 10-14, 18-19, 28, 60-63, & 152-153)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), Zhang discusses that "the non-native component is located on the Web View layer, and the native component is located on the other higher level. The non-native component layer renders the mini program page, namely the sub-application page. The native component layer renders the playing interface of the target multimedia content."2 However, Zhang does not teach that the non-native component layer and the native component layer are performed on respective processing units. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Zhang fails to disclose "rendering, via a browser, the native component data via a first rendering process and rendering, via the browser, the non- native component data via a second rendering process, to obtain a display page of the target sub- application, the browser being executed in the target operating system, the first rendering process and the second rendering process being performed on respective processing units," as discussed during the interview. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Claim 1 (and all associated dependent claims) patentably defines over Zhang”
The Office respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted for the record that the limitation to which Applicant refers (“that the non-native component layer and the native component layer are performed on respective processing units”) is currently subject to a USC §112(a) written description rejection for appearing to lack possession for this functionality in the original Specification. Moreover, the Office respectfully submits that Zhang reasonably shows the first rendering process and the second rendering process being performed on respective processing units (Zhang: ¶¶ 197, 200, & 211). Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final 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 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights