DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is made final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority of European application EP23315359 field 09/18/2023.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1, 2, 4, 8-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allinson (US 2016/0173617 A1), in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2024/0114206 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allinson teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause a current computing device ([0012-0013]; FIG. 1 and [0033]: current computing device may be user device 110) to:
receive a first content locator and a second content locator, content associated with the first content locator being previously accessed by a previous computing device in association with a user account and content associated with the second content locator being previously accessed by the previous computing device in association with the user account (FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 2(a) and [0047]: a first webpage/first content locator and a second webpage/second content locator are received, both webpages previously accessed by a previous computing device/user device 105 in association with a user account; FIG. 2(a) and [0052]: For example, first content locator may correspond to content source 260-a and second content locator may correspond to content source 260-b, each content source corresponding to a web page);
determine that the content associated with the first content locator is eligible for viewing on the current computing device in association with the user account (FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 6 and [0066-0069]: for example, content associated with the first content locator is eligible for viewing on user device 110 when the user logs into the account at server 120. Upon successful login, a previous application session may be loaded; account management unit 330 of FIG. 3 and user profiles 410 of FIG. 4 and [0057-0065]: determination of eligibility for viewing is in association with the user account, or one of the stored user profiles 410);
determine that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device in association with the user account (FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 6 and [0066-0069]: for example, content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on user device 110 when the user fails to log into the account at server 120; account management unit 330 of FIG. 3 and user profiles 410 of FIG. 4 and [0057-0065]: determination of eligibility for viewing is in association with the user account, or one of the stored user profiles 410); and
present, using a web browser associated with the user account, content associated with the first content locator ([0036], steps 940 and 945 of FIG. 9 and [0085]: content associated with the first content locator is presented on a web browser).
Allinson does not explicitly teach not presenting content associated with the second content locator based on… the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device in association with the user account.
Agrawal teaches present, using a web browser associated with the user account, content associated with the first content locator without presenting content associated with the second content locator based on the determination that the content associated with the first content locator is eligible for viewing on the current computing device in association with the user account and the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device in association with the user account ([0013], [0020], FIG. 2 and [0032-0034], FIGS. 4A-B and [0040-0052], FIG. 5 and [0068-0073]: as supported in [0020], content 120 includes websites via a browsing application. As further supported in [0041], restricted content 122 includes websites accessible via the browsing application. For example, content associated with a first content locator may be content included in restricted content 122, like a first website, without presenting content, which is included in content 120 but excluded from restricted content 122, associated with the second content locator, like a second website. Such presentation is based on the determination of the first content locator being eligible and the second content locator being ineligible for viewing on the current computing device/secondary device 104; [0060]: a user account is in association with the eligibility of viewing certain content. For example, a user account manages the unrestricted access mode and restricted access mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allinson by incorporating the teachings of Agrawal so as to include not presenting content associated with the second content locator based on the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device. Doing so would conserve processing resources on the current computing device to more effectively process display of allowed content. By displaying content based on their eligibility on certain devices, the user may more reliably use different devices for specific purposes given their different display conditions. For example, the user can more efficiently focus on a particular task on the current computing device given its restricted display of content (displaying content associated with the first content locator while excluding content associated with the second content locator).
Regarding claim 2, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the current computing device to:
receive a third content locator, content associated with the third content locator being previously accessed within the previous computing device in association with the user account;
determine that the content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on the current computing device; and
present, within the web browser, the third content locator based on the determination that the content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on the current computing device (FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 2(a) and [0052], and FIG. 6 and [0066-0069]: for example, content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on user device 110 when the user logs into the account at server 120. Upon successful login, a previous application session may be loaded. The third content locator may be a third content source 260-c).
Regarding claim 4, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson further teaches wherein the determination that the content associated with the first content locator is eligible for viewing on the current computing device and the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on a network via which the current computing device received the first content locator and the second content locator (FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 6 and [0066-0069]: for example, content associated with the first content locator is eligible for viewing on user device 110 when the user logs into the account at server 120. Upon successful login, a previous application session may be loaded. Additionally, for example, content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on user device 110 when the user fails to log into the account at server 120; FIG. 2(a) and [0045-0046]: the determination is based on a network 220 via which the current computing device 110 received the first and second content locators represented by content sources 260-a and 260-b, respectively).
Regarding claim 8, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the current computing device to present, within the web browser, the content associated with the first content locator based on the determination that the content associated with the first content locator is eligible for viewing on the current computing device ([0036], steps 940 and 945 of FIG. 9 and [0085]: content associated with the first content locator is presented on a web browser).
Regarding claim 9, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8. Allinson further teaches the presentation of the content associated with the first content locator includes navigating to a portion of the content associated with the first content locator based on interaction with the content associated with the first content locator on the previous computing device ([0031-0032]: a portion of the content from where the user last scrolled to on the previous computing device is presented; [0036]: “Based on the session information received from server 120, web browser 111 may access and display the same webpage and at the same webpage scroll position at device 110, as in the last session of application 106”; [[0058]: user profile 410 includes “content-presentation-related information of the (same) application session, e.g., amount or percentage of webpage scrolled in a web browser”)
Regarding claim 10, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Agrawal further teaches the instructions are further configured to cause the current computing device to delete the second content locator based on the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device ([0013], [0020], FIG. 2 and [0032-0034], FIGS. 4A-B and [0040-0052], FIG. 5 and [0068-0073]: as supported in [0020], content 120 includes websites via a browsing application. As further supported in [0041], restricted content 122 includes websites accessible via the browsing application. As further supported in [0043-0045], content not included in restricted content 122 is removed/deleted based on the determination that the content, such as content associated with the second content locator, is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allinson in view of Agrawal by incorporating the further teachings of Agrawal so as to include the instructions are further configured to cause the current computing device to delete the second content locator based on the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device. Doing so would conserve processing resources on the current computing device to more effectively process display of certain content. By displaying content based on their eligibility on certain devices, the user may more reliably use different devices for specific purposes given their different display conditions. For example, the user can more efficiently focus on a particular task on the current computing device given its restricted display of content (displaying content associated with the first content locator while excluding content associated with the second content locator).
Regarding claim 11, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson further teaches wherein:
the web browser is a multi-tabbed web browser; and
the presentation of the first content locator includes presenting the content associated with the first content locator in association with a tab included in the multi-tabbed web browser ([0030]: “For example, with respect to a web browsing session, a session may relate to one or more time periods during which (1) a web browser installed on a device is launched or activated, (2) one or more websites are accessed (based on their respective web addresses) through the web browser, (3) content of the website(s) is presented to the user via the web browser (e.g., on one or more tabs of the web browser)”. Thus, presentation of the first content locator is presented in association with a tab included in the multi-tabbed web browser).
Regarding claim 12, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11. Allinson further teaches wherein the tab is a first tab and the instructions are further configured to cause the current computing device to:
receive a third content locator, content associated with the third content locator being previously accessed within the previous computing device in association with the user account;
determine that the content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on the current computing device; and
generate a second tab in the multi-tabbed web browser, the second tab being associated with the third content locator (FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 2(a) and [0052], and FIG. 6 and [0066-0069]: for example, content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on user device 110 when the user logs into the account at server 120. Upon successful login, a previous application session may be loaded. The third content locator may be a third content source 260-c; [0030]: “For example, with respect to a web browsing session, a session may relate to one or more time periods during which (1) a web browser installed on a device is launched or activated, (2) one or more websites are accessed (based on their respective web addresses) through the web browser, (3) content of the website(s) is presented to the user via the web browser (e.g., on one or more tabs of the web browser)”. Thus, presentation of the first content locator is presented in association with a tab included in the multi-tabbed web browser; [0036]: “The user may be able to request to load a previous browser session… at another tab of the same browser at the same device by accessing a certain pre-specified URL (related to session continuation server 120”).
Regarding claim 13, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson further teaches wherein the web browser includes a graphical element listing multiple additional content locators, the multiple additional content locators being previously accessed by computing devices associated with the user account, the computing devices including the previous computing device and at least one additional computing device ([0032]: “the user may be able to maintain synchronization of one or more application sessions across multiple devices, and as needed, seamlessly continue the application session(s) to interact with the same content in the same presentation format as last accessed on one or more of the previous devices or previous application sessions”; [0030]: “For example, with respect to a web browsing session, a session may relate to one or more time periods during which (1) a web browser installed on a device is launched or activated, (2) one or more websites are accessed (based on their respective web addresses) through the web browser, (3) content of the website(s) is presented to the user via the web browser (e.g., on one or more tabs of the web browser)”. Thus, a graphical element includes a collection of tabs listing multiple additional content locators corresponding to additional websites previously accessed by computing devices associated with the user account).
Regarding claim 15, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the current computing device to launch the web browser in association with the user account ([0036], FIG. 4 and [0058-0060], steps 940 and 945 of FIG. 9 and [0085]: content associated with the first content locator is presented on a web browser, which is launched in association with the user account).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a computing device comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, are configured to cause the computing device to perform operations corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the computing device of claim 16. Allinson further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the current computing device to:
receive a third content locator, content associated with the third content locator being previously accessed within the previous computing device in association with the user account;
determine that the content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on the computing device in association with the user account; and
present, within the web browser, the content associated with the third content locator based on the determination that the content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on the computing device in association with the user account (Allinson, FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 2(a) and [0052], and FIG. 6 and [0066-0069]: for example, content associated with the third content locator is eligible for viewing on user device 110 when the user logs into the account at server 120. Upon successful login, a previous application session may be loaded. The third content locator may be a third content source 260-c; account management unit 330 of FIG. 3 and user profiles 410 of FIG. 4 and [0057-0065]: determination of eligibility for viewing is in association with the user account, or one of the stored user profiles 410).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the claims recite a method performed by a computing device, the method comprising steps corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Claims 3, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allinson (US 2016/0173617 A1), in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2024/0114206 A1), in view of Kumar et al. (US 2015/0286729 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2. Allinson in view of Agrawal does not explicitly teach wherein the first content locator and the third content locator are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected.
Kumar teaches wherein the first content locator and the third content locator are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected (FIG. 7 and [0097-0098]: for example, the first content locator/relevant tab 708 is listed first from left, while the third content locator/non-relevant tab 714 is listed fourth from left. They are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected corresponding to their relevancy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allinson in view of Agrawal by incorporating the teachings of Kumar so as to include wherein the first content locator and the third content locator are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected. Doing so would allow the user to more readily access relevant content by reducing the time the user needs to sift through tabs to find the most relevant content. The user is given a more predictable layout of content locators, listed by their likelihood of being selected by the user given their determined relevance, through which the user can more effectively navigate.
Regarding claim 14, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. Allinson in view of Agrawal does not explicitly teach wherein the additional content locators are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected.
Kumar teaches wherein the additional content locators are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected (FIG. 7 and [0097-0098]: for example, additional content locators, or tabs, are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected corresponding to their relevancy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allinson in view of Agrawal by incorporating the teachings of Kumar so as to include wherein the additional content locators are listed in an order of a predicted likelihood of being selected. Doing so would allow the user to more readily access relevant content by reducing the time the user needs to sift through tabs to find the most relevant content. The user is given a more predictable layout of content locators, listed by their likelihood of being selected by the user given their determined relevance, through which the user can more effectively navigate.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites a computing device corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allinson (US 2016/0173617 A1), in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2024/0114206 A1), in view of Deets et al. (US 2023/0393710 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson in view of Agrawal does not explicitly teach wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on an interaction of scrolling through the content associated with the second content locator via the previous computing device indicating that a user has finished viewing the content associated with the second content locator.
Deets teaches wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on an interaction of scrolling through the content associated with the second content locator via the previous computing device indicating that a user has finished viewing the content associated with the second content locator ([0181], [0230], FIG. 5H: for example, a second content locator/first tab 518 is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device/second electronic device 506 based on interaction with the content via the previous computing device/first electronic device 502 indicating that a user has finished viewing the content via selection of a user interface element 582).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allinson in view of Agrawal by incorporating the teachings of Deets so as to include wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on interaction with the content associated with the second content locator via the previous computing device indicating that a user has finished viewing the content associated with the second content locator. Doing so would conserve processing resources on the current computing device as content that the user has finished viewing is not unnecessarily reproduced.
Claims 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allinson (US 2016/0173617 A1), in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2024/0114206 A1), in view of Cao et al (US 2018/0025012 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson in view of Agrawal does not explicitly teach wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on text included in the content associated with the second content locator.
Cao teaches wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on text included in the content associated with the second content locator ([0004] and [0008]: second content locator is ineligible for viewing, or blocked, based on text included in the content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allinson in view of Agrawal by incorporating the teachings of Cao so as to include wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on text included in the content associated with the second content locator. Doing so would help prevent inappropriate content, as suggested by text, from potentially malicious sites from being displayed that could hinder effective browsing on the current computing device.
Regarding claim 7, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Allinson in view of Agrawal does not explicitly teach wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on a classification for the second content locator.
Cao teaches wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on a classification for the second content locator ([0004] and [0008]: second content locator is ineligible for viewing, or blocked, based on classification of the second content locator as part of a restricted category).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allinson in view of Agrawal by incorporating the teachings of Cao so as to include wherein the determination that the content associated with the second content locator is ineligible for viewing on the current computing device is based on a classification for the second content locator. Doing so would help prevent inappropriate content from potentially malicious sites, determined based on their classification, from being displayed that could hinder effective browsing on the current computing device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding amended claim 1, Agrawal does not teach the amended limitation for “a user account” since Agrawal’s system “involves two different users”.
Regarding amended dependent claim 4, Allinson’s network 220 “does not disclose using the type or nature of the network as a basis for determining whether content is eligible or ineligible for viewing”.
Regarding amended dependent claim 5, Deets selection of an “x” button to close a tab does not teach the claimed limitations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a), in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s argument is moot because the argued feature relies on Allinson. Applicant is advised to review the updated mapping based on Applicant’s amendment.
Even so, merely because Agrawal may provide examples of two different users accessing content across different devices, this does not preclude the users accessing content under the same account. Indeed, Agrawal provides an example ([0060]) in which a user, like a parent, controls both unrestricted and restricted modes for devices which may be accessed by another user, like their child. In the context of what Allinson teaches, Agrawal provides support for “a user account” even if there are multiple users. The claim does not preclude the teachings of Allinson in view of Argrawal.
Regarding point (b), in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the type or nature of the network as a basis for determining whether content is eligible or ineligible for viewing”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding point (c), Deets does not merely disclose selecting an “x” button but also scrolling, which helps form the basis indicative of a user that has finished viewing the content ([0181], [0230], FIG. 5H). To be clear, Deets discloses:
In some embodiments, the first electronic device receives a request to close a tab of the one or more tabs of the tab group (e.g., an input at a close affordance of a tab of the one or more tabs) (e.g., FIG. 5H also illustrates receiving, at the first electronic device, a cursor input 581 occurring over a user interface element 582 (e.g., an “x” button) for closing the first tab 518). In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that information indicates that the tab is being interacted with (e.g., being viewed, scrolled, mouse movements, links being selected, comments being written, etc.) at the second electronic device associated with the second user account, the first electronic device displays a user interface element (e.g., a banner or a warning window) overlaying the webpage that indicates that the tab is being interacted with by another device (e.g., the user interface element).
The claim does not preclude the teachings of 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 KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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 D 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 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights