DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/459,714 filed 9/1/2023 which claims priority from JP2022-141123 filed 9/6/2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 3/27/2026 which provides amendment to claims 11 and 12 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 9, 11, and 12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 9, 11, and 12 have been considered, however, the amendment(s) to the claims necessitated a new consideration and search resulting in new prior art cited below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake et al. (US 2016/0021271 A1, hereinafter “Otake”), and further in view of Claeys et al. (US 2022/0300637 A1, hereinafter “Claeys”) and Turgeman (US 20170154366 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Otake teaches a communication terminal capable of communicating with a server system for rendering a Web page, the communication terminal comprising a display; one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors. More specifically, an image forming apparatus has a function to perform imaging of a web page provided by an external web server and provide a user with the web page (Otake, abstract). Otake makes a determination of whether a web page, or a portion of a web page, is safe for a multifunction peripheral (MFP) to load and render itself. If the web page, or portion, is determined to not be safe, Otake functions similarly to the claims; having a cloud server render the page, or portion, in the form of images and sending the images back to the MFP (Otake, Figure 7).
when executing the instructions, causes the communication terminal to: store … information as data in storage of the communication terminal. More specifically, storage unit 119 stores user data for each user of MFP 101, which includes determination information/access history (Otake, [0066], [0111], [0116]).
transmit, to the server system, address information of a Web page… More specifically, when a web page is determined to be unsafe, the address is transmitted to a cloud server from the MFP at step s22 (Otake, [0086]).
receive a rendering image of the Web page from the server system, the rendering image corresponding to a result acquired by accessing the address information… More specifically, not safe area 227 is imaged by cloud server 60 and transmitted to MFP 101 (Otake, [0094]).
provide the received rendering image on the display. More specifically, not safe area 227 is imaged by cloud server 60 and transmitted to MFP 101 (Otake, [0094]).
However, Otake discloses sending only a URL to a cloud server and therefore may not explicitly teach every aspect of
[the information is] cookie information;
[the transmitting of address information includes] the cookie information stored in the storage.
[the accessing the address information is] using the cookie information;
update the data in the storage using cookie information generated by the server during server-side interpretation of the web page for generating the rendered image and transmitted in response to a termination notification indicating completion of a remote session.
Claeys discloses a remote browsing session is initiated between a remote browser client executing on a client device and a remote browser host executing on a remote browser server. The host receives browsing data including cookies from a client for configuring the browsing session. The host updates the cookies and sends them to the client for storage periodically during the browsing session (Claeys, abstract, [0026], [0032]). The host also performs the rendering of images that are sent to the client as display of web pages (Claeys, [0003], [0036]).
Turgeman discloses that typically, cookies are sent from a website (or from a web server) to an end-user device. Upon a subsequent visit to the same website, the website may receive from the browser the content of such previously-stored cookie (construed as accessing the website with address information and cookie information) (Turgeman, [0024]). The system includes a Behavioral Cookie control unit 150, which may be able to create, generate, read, write, store, edit, modify, send and/or receive a “cookie” or other or similar data-item or piece-of-data, which may be similar to an HTTP cookie but may allow further differentiation among users and/or improved tracking of users, as described above and/or herein (Turgeman, [0064]). The components of Behavioral Cookie control unit may be all server-side components with operations being performed remotely at said server (Turgeman, [0065]). If the Behavioral Cookie control unit is a server-side component, the Behavioral Cookie is sent to the browser of the end-user device (Turgeman, [0067]-[0068]). The Behavioral Cookie is stored locally in a local storage unit 152 of the end-user device and/or remotely on the remote server (Turgeman, [0070]). A Behavioral Cookie updater may further operate, to update, modify and/or edit the content or the payload of the Behavioral Cookie. The updating of the Behavioral Cookie may be performed upon a triggering event (e.g., the user closed the browser window, or the user has commanded to exit the browser, which are user interactions construed as a termination notification). The updating of the payload or the content of the Behavioral Cookie may be performed locally (e.g., in the locally-stored Behavioral Cookie) and/or remotely (e.g., at the remote repository or server) (Turgeman, [0071]). User interaction data at a client device can be sent to, and monitored by, a remote server, and can result in the returning of the Behavioral Cookie to the client device (Turgeman, [0109]-[0101]). Therefore, Turgeman is construable as suggesting at least that a server can receive user interaction data describing the termination/completion of a browsing session that results in the updating and returning of a cookie for storing in the client device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Otake with Claeys and Turgeman that a system for retrieving web pages from servers would include that the request for the web page includes cookies as well as that the server performs the rendering of web pages as images provided to the client as well as updating and returning the cookie to be stored locally cookie upon a termination notification received at the server. With Otake, Claeys, and Turgeman disclosing accessing web pages, with Orake and Clayes disclosing the remote rendering of web pages as images, with Claeys and Turgeman disclosing the requesting of browser sessions include cookies as well as remote updating and returning of cookies, with Claeys additionally disclosing the remote server both renders said web pages and updates/returning of cookies, and with Turgeman additionally suggesting a server receives user interaction information from a client device indicating a termination of a browsing session resulting in returning an update to the locally stored cookie, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a system for retrieving web pages from servers would include that the request for the web page includes cookies as well as that the server performs the rendering of web pages as images provided to the client as well as updating and returning the cookie to be stored locally cookie upon a termination notification received at the server in order to ensure the information in a cookie is as up-to-date as possible when it is used for the subsequent accessing of the same web pages. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this system for receiving web pages.
Regarding claim 9, Otake with Claeys and Turgeman teach the Web browsing system according to claim 11, wherein the communication terminal is an image forming apparatus configured to form an image on a sheet. More specifically, an image forming apparatus can image web pages and perform image forming (Otake, abstract)
Regarding claim 12, this claim substantially recites a method performed by the communication terminal of claim 11, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Pertinent Prior Art
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.
Buzbee (US 10,552,639 B1) – web browsing environment utilizing cookies where rendering of web pages can occur at a remote server which are sent to the local device for display.
Karppanen (US 10,095,699 B1) – web pages are rendered as tile/images at a server and sent to the clients.
Kozaki ( US 2017/0099409 A1) – image forming apparatus that displays web pages, web page requests include attribute data.
Sanuki (US 2015/0169265 A1) – web server renders web page images for an image forming apparatus.
Ruge (US 2017/0078406 A1) – remote rendering of web pages as images, utilizes cookies.
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 PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights