DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 1/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 14 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frengut, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2002/0046099 (“Frengut”), in view of Arastafar, U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0197126 (“Arastafar”), in view of Marchiori, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0303215 (“Marchiori”), and in view of Maryka, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0289156 (“Maryka”)
With regard to Claim 1, Frengut teaches a system for using registries to selectively load website elements, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories ([0027] describes users communicating with a host server computer), configured to:
receive a webpage encoding a scaffold with a plurality of slots ([0033] describes that a custom web page is generated using a static portion comprising as template with space holders into which content is inserted);
transmit a request for feature flags; receive, in response to the request for feature flags, a set of feature flags ([0032] describes that the host generates a user’s homepage by retrieving a user profile, where the profile specifies user preferences with regard to layout, features and content);
transmit a request for website elements, from a registry, based on the set of feature flags; receive, in response to the request for website elements, code for a plurality of website elements corresponding to the plurality of slots; and output the plurality of website elements in the plurality of slots ([0032] describes that the features and content to be displayed on the user’s home page is determined in accordance with the received information in the user profile, where the information, applications, and hyperlinks are placed in the user’s home page and output to the user).
Frengut does not teach wherein the code for each respective website element, of the plurality of website elements indicates a corresponding slot, of the plurality of slots, for the respective website element, of the plurality of website elements, and wherein the code for the plurality of website elements defines a plurality of placeholders, corresponding to the set of slots.
Arastafar teaches at [0052]-[0053] that a user requests a webpage including various types of content. Content sources are contacted and content data retrieved therefrom. [0069]-[0074] describes that a content item can be a data item, which is represented using a number of tags including an indication of an absolute or relative location in which the data will be displayed. [0079]-[0085] describe that code can also include code for placeholders, which include data which are to be placed in the page in the same location (also identified in the placeholder code) as the first item whose code has also been received. [0089] indicates a plurality of items exist in a page, and that additional placeholders can likewise exist depending on page design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Frengut with Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience as described at [0061] of Arastafar by ensuring that a page is properly sized at the outset of a user accessing it, avoiding confusion and giving users content to view rather than a blank page while rich content is loading.
Frengut also does not teach wherein the code for the plurality of each respective website elements element defines a subscribed event indicating an event that triggers a change for the respective website element. Marchiori teaches at [0058]-[0060] that content items for an application can be received from a remote store, and include one or more event listeners, each of which detects a specific user event and performs a function in response to the event. Maryka teaches at [0047] that components received from a server can include the ability to respond to user events by updating the component, such as when a user interacts with an element by changing data values therein. The component has code which allows for updating the component itself and not refreshing the entire document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Marchiori with Maryka, to improve page interactivity by leveraging the event listeners described in Marchiori to trigger changes in website elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to then combine Marchiori and Maryka with Frengut and Arastafar, to improve user experience by enabling page elements retrieved as described in those references to have the improved interactivity provided by event listeners as described in Marchiori and Maryka.
Claim 8 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Arastafar teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: output the plurality of placeholders, wherein the plurality of website elements are output to replace the plurality of placeholders. [0059]-[0060] describes that a system can determine that rich content is to be inserted into a webpage, and use placeholders selected to occupy the content frames of the webpage until the actual page content is retrieved and substituted for the placeholder to form the final page.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Frengut with Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience as described at [0061] of Arastafar by ensuring that a page is properly sized at the outset of a user accessing it, avoiding confusion and giving users content to view rather than a blank page while the rich content is loading.
Claim 9 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Frengut teaches that encoding the scaffold comprises at least one hypertext markup language file. [0033] describes that the template is a web page, and incorporates hyperlinks.
With regard to Claim 11, Frengut teaches that transmitting the request for website elements comprises: transmitting the request including a set of feature flags associated with the user device. [0032] describes that the profile identifying the custom content items returns the items to be displayed on the user device.
With regard to Claim 12, Frengut teaches determining, by the user device, the subset of website elements, wherein the request for website elements indicates the subset of website elements. [0032] describes the user receiving and displaying the custom home page.
With regard to Claim 13, Frengut teaches outputting the subset of website elements comprises: rendering the webpage including the subset of website elements. [0032] describes the user device rendering the page with the custom elements.
With regard to Claim 14, Frengut teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for using registries to selectively load website elements, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: receive a request for website elements from a set of possible website elements; retrieve, from at least one registry file, code for a subset of website elements from the set of possible website elements; and transmit, in response to the request for website elements, the code for the subset of website elements.
Frengut at [0032] describes that the system identifies the custom information, applications, and hyperlinks according to an individual’s profile and places them on a home page when a user accesses the page. [0027] describes that the content for all users is stored in one or more databases, thereby indicating that a subset of all of the elements stored are retrieved and displayed for a particular user.
Frengut does not teach wherein the code for the subset of website elements indicates a corresponding slot, of the set of slots, for each website element, of the subset of website elements, and wherein the code for the subset of website elements defines a set of placeholders, corresponding to the set of slots.
Arastafar teaches at [0052]-[0053] that a user requests a webpage including various types of content. Content sources are contacted and content data retrieved therefrom. [0069]-[0074] describes that a content item can be a data item, which is represented using a number of tags including an indication of an absolute or relative location in which the data will be displayed. [0079]-[0085] describe that code can also include code for placeholders, which include data which are to be placed in the page in the same location (also identified in the placeholder code) as the first item whose code has also been received. [0089] indicates a plurality of items exist in a page, and that additional placeholders can likewise exist depending on page design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Frengut with Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience as described at [0061] of Arastafar by ensuring that a page is properly sized at the outset of a user accessing it, avoiding confusion and giving users content to view rather than a blank page while rich content is loading.
With regard to Claim 15, Frengut does not specifically teach that the at least one registry file comprises at least one JavaScript file. Frengut does teach at [0003] that advertisements can include scripts; Examiner takes Official notice that a JavaScript file was a well-known type of script file at the time of invention. One of skill in the art would have combined the well-known with Frengut, to realize the particular benefits of JavaScript such as ease of use and speed of execution.
With regard to Claim 16, Frengut teaches that the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to: receive a request for feature flags; and transmit, in response to the request for feature flags, a set of feature flags. [0032] describes that the host generates a user’s homepage by retrieving a user profile, where the profile specifies user preferences with regard to layout, features and content.
With regard to Claim 17, Frengut teaches that the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to: map a set of feature flags, included in the request for website elements, to the subset of website elements. [0032] describes that the features and content to be displayed on the user’s home page is determined in accordance with the received information in the user profile, where the information, applications, and hyperlinks are placed in the user’s home page and output to the user.
With regard to Claim 18, Frengut teaches that the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to: determine the subset of website elements based on an indication in the request for website elements. [0032] describes that the elements retrieved are retrieved according to the specified items from the received user profile.
With regard to Claim 19, Frengut does not teach that the request for website elements comprises an application programming interface call. Examiner takes Official notice that an application programming interface call to request website elements was well-known in the art at the time this application was filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine the well-known with Frengut, as APIs are what typically enable software systems to communicate with one another and would therefore be fundamental to a system which communicates website elements between software systems.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frengut, in view of Arastafar, in view of Marchiori, in view of Maryka, and in view of Cox, U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0204040 (“Cox”).
With regard to Claim 3, Cox teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: transmit a query to a domain name system (DNS) resolver; receive a response to the query from the DNS resolver; and transmit a request for the webpage based on the response to the query, wherein the webpage is received in response to the request for the webpage. [0032] describes a receipt of a domain name for a user to access a page at the domain name. [0034]-[0036] describe that the query initiates a DNS resolver to retrieve a DNS record. If the record indicates that the requested domain name is approved by a filter, the web page is downloaded and displayed to the requesting user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Cox with Frengut, Marchiori, Maryka and Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling content filtering, thereby allowing for web access that blocks harmful content from reaching end users.
Claims 4-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frengut, in view of Arastafar, in view of Marchiori, in view of Maryka, and in view of Epstein, U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0038643 (“Epstein”).
With regard to Claim 4, Epstein teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: move at least one website element, in the plurality of website elements, from a first slot in the plurality of slots to a second slot in the plurality of slots; and refrain from transmitting a request for the at least one website element. [0091] describes that content slots exist into which content items are inserted for display. [0099] describes that content can be shifted in slots, including sequencing such that a first in the sequence is displayed after a last in a sequence. [0105]-[0106] describe that users can author content aggregations and edit slots and the content to be inserted therein, thereby suggesting that users can assign content to different slots as desired. [0131] describes that content items that are laid out in aggregations are cached, and therefore not re-requested for download when assigned to different slots in an aggregation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Epstein with Frengut, Marchiori, Maryka and Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing additional user control over the display of content items in an interface.
With regard to Claim 5, Epstein teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: receive a custom value associated with the at least one website element, wherein the custom value is preserved after the at least one website element is moved. [0114] describes that an element in an aggregation can include various selected headlines, including headlines specified as matching a term input by a user. Therefore, placing this element in different slots will includer maintaining the custom value created by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Epstein with Frengut, Marchiori, Maryka and Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing additional user control over the display of content items in an interface.
With regard to Claim 6, Epstein teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: hide the plurality of website elements based on a first interaction; re-output the plurality of website elements based on a second interaction; and refrain from re-transmitting a request for website elements. [0106] describes that users are able to activate and deactivate slots in the interface, which causes elements to be hidden or displayed as their assigned slot is activated and reactivated. No additional request is described for this activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Epstein with Frengut, Marchiori, Maryka and Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing additional user control over the display of content items in an interface.
With regard to Claim 7, Epstein teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: receive at least one custom value associated with the plurality of website elements, wherein the at least one custom value is preserved after the plurality of website elements are re-output. [0114] describes that an element in an aggregation can include various selected headlines, including headlines specified as matching a term input by a user. [0106] describes that users are able to activate and deactivate slots in the interface, which causes elements to be hidden or displayed as their assigned slot is activated and reactivated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Epstein with Frengut, Marchiori, Maryka and Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing additional user control over the display of content items in an interface.
With regard to Claim 20, Epstein teaches that the request for website elements comprises a hypertext transfer protocol request. [0036] describes that content requests, document retrieval, etc. care carried out through HTTP requests in some embodiments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Epstein with Frengut, Marchiori, Maryka and Arastafar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing additional user control over the display of content items in an interface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Maryka reference teaches or suggests the elements of the claims that have been added by amendment and argued by Applicant as distinguishing over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 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 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights