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 non-final.
Claims 1, 2, 4-19, 21, and 22 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent claims. Claims 3 and 20 are canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority of European application EP23315359 field 09/18/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 includes repetitive language, reciting “present, within a 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 and 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”. It is indefinite as to the function of two instances of “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” and if these two instances describe different instances or the same instance. The repetition appears to be erroneous drafting. Thus, the Examiner interprets the repetition as one instance.
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, and 19 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, in association with a user account, 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 the 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 type of 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 type of 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. The network “may be local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a public network, a private network, a proprietary network, a Public Telephone Switched Network (PSTN), the Internet, a wireless network, a cellular network, a virtual network, or any combination thereof”).
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. Claim 16 contains a difference from claim 1’s “present” limitation as claim 16 recites “request, from a content server, content associated with the first content locator without requesting content associated with the second content locator” (Allinson, see continuation server 120 of FIG. 1, [0036], steps 940 and 945 of FIG. 9 and [0085]: content associated with the first content locator is presented on a web browser; 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, thus it is not requested; 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) (Agrawal, [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 requesting 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). Aside from “request” replacing “present”, the rationale incorporated from the rejection of claim 1 remains the same.
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 a 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 and 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 claim 19, the claim recites a method performed by a computing device, the method comprising steps corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 19 further includes “the presentation of the content associated with the first content locator including an identification of the previous computing device” (Allinson, steps 935-945 of FIG. 9 and [0084-0085]).
Claims 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 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, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches the computing device of claim 16. 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.
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 indication that a user has reached an end of 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 reached an end of 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 an indication that a user has reached an end of 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.
Claim 21 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 Cooppan et al. (US 2018/0191565 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1.
Cooppan teaches 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 is based on a volume of data to be transferred to present the content associated with the first content locator,
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 is based on a volume of data to be transferred to present the content associated with the second content locator (FIG. 4, [0061-0063]: for example, a website using less than a threshold amount is eligible for viewing while a website using the threshold amount or more is ineligible for viewing).
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 Cooppan so as to include 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 is based on a volume of data to be transferred to present the content associated with the first content locator, 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 is based on a volume of data to be transferred to present the content associated with the second content locator. Doing so would help prevent overloading of data onto the current computing device, thereby maintaining the current computing device’s health and functionality. Because overloading of data would disrupt processing of the current computing device, ensuring that content is in a manageable volume prior to transfer would be advantageous.
Claim 22 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 Funane (US 2015/0312345 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Allinson in view of Agrawal teaches he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1.
Funane teaches 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 is based on a presentation resource of the current computing device being sufficient to present the content associated with the first content locator, 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 is based on the presentation resource of the current computing device being insufficient to present the content associated with the second content locator ([0008-0009], FIG. 4 and [0050-0056], and FIG. 6: for example, if a presentation resource/local storage area of the current computing device has available storage area for a website, then the content is eligible for viewing. If insufficient storage area is available, then the content is ineligible for viewing).
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 Funane so as to include 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 is based on a presentation resource of the current computing device being sufficient to present the content associated with the first content locator, 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 is based on the presentation resource of the current computing device being insufficient to present the content associated with the second content locator. Doing so would help prevent overloading of data onto the current computing device, thereby maintaining the current computing device’s health and functionality. Because excessive amounts of data cannot be stored by a limited resource, like local storage, of the current computing device, ensuring that content can be stored by the resource prior to transfer would be advantageous.
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, “Allinson does not disclose receiving both a first content locator and a second content locator ‘in association with a suer account,’ and determining” eligibility of content (p. 16 of Remarks). Also, the relevance of Agrawal is not apparent (p. 16 of Remarks)
Regarding amended dependent claim 4, Allinson’s network 220 denotes a type of network (pp. 16-17 of Remarks).
Regarding amended claim 16, Agrawal’s “temporal restrictions” do not teach the amended “request, from a content server, content associated with eh first content locator without requesting content associated with he second content locator” (p. 17 of Remarks.)
Regarding amended claim 19, “the presentation of the content associated with the first content locator including an identification of the previous computing device” is not disclosed or suggested by the art of record.
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), Allinson indeed discloses, “receiv[ing], in association with a user account, a first content locator and a second content locator”. Allinson discloses 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. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 2(a) and [0047]. 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 (FIG. 2(a) and [0052]). Furthermore, Allinson discloses 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 and 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. 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 (FIG. 1 and [0035-0042], FIG. 6 and [0066-0069]). Likewise, as another 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. Such determination of eligibility for viewing is in association with the user account, or one of the stored user profiles 410 (account management unit 330 of FIG. 3 and user profiles 410 of FIG. 4 and [0057-0065]).
As for Agrawal providing 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 under their user account, 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), while Applicant has amended “network” to “type of network”, this amendment is merely nominal and does not detail the “type of network” in such a way that would preclude the teachings of Allinson. Applicant is advised to review the updated mapping for the rejection of amended claim 4.
Regarding point (c), Allinson is primarily relied upon for the argued feature of “request, from a content server”. 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 is advised to review the updated mapping for the rejection of amended claim 16.
Regarding point (d), the argued limitation is indeed taught by Allinson. Applicant is advised to review the updated mapping for the rejection of amended claim 16.
Regarding point (e), Deets discloses selection of a user interface element 582, which is indicative of a user “reaching an end of a content”. That is, an “end” of a content may correspond to the elimination of said content. Based on previous claim language, Applicant may consider language similar to “scrolling through the content associated with the second content locator and reaching, via the scrolling, an end of the content associated with the second content locator”. Such an amendment would require further search and/or consideration. The Examiner’s position is that Applicant’s removal of “scrolling” broadens the scope of the claim.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the claims are properly rejected.
Conclusion
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