DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final communication is in response to Application No. 18/502,939 filed 11/06/2023 which claims priority to foreign application no. JP2022-178193 filed 11/7/2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Request for Continued Examination and Amendment presented on 3/16/2026 which provides amendment to claims 1-3, 7, and 9-13 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9-13 have been considered, however, the amendment(s) to the claims necessitated a new consideration and search resulting in new prior art cited below.
Additionally, the Remarks discuss the intention of the amended language that an operation instruction coming from a communication apparatus (local-side) and going to an image generation system (server-side) includes a flag indicating whether the communication apparatus has permission to perform data sharing/copying. The Applicant asserts this is different than the cited art because it is the server-side that is determining the permission (from the received flag), not the client-side as in Chauhan.
However, the Examiner submits this assertion is not how the system would work in reality. The flag is set in the operation instruction at the local device. The operation instruction is sent to a server. The server merely references the flag. Therefore, the local device would still determine whether it has permission to share/copy because the local device sets the flag, and the server device references it.
Rationally, it does not make sense that a local device would send a copy instruction to a server device along with a flag indicating whether they have permission to perform that same copy instruction. For example, sending a copy instruction to a server with a flag indicating there is no permission to perform the copy instruction is illogical. This rationale speaks to the rationale behind the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly in claims 9-13), the amendments that recite:
“…the operation instruction including a flag field indicating whether Web page configuration information acquired at a cloud browser function of the image generation system is permitted to be made available to the communication apparatus;
determine, based on the operation instruction including the flag, whether data sharing between the communication apparatus and the image generation system is permitted;
in response to the determination indicating that the data sharing is permitted and the operation instruction being a copy instruction [perform the acquiring];
in response to the determination indicating that the data sharing is permitted [perform the transmitting];” do not appear supported by the specification.
A flag that determines “permission” in the operation instruction does not appear supported by the specification. In fact, “permissions”, or synonyms thereof, do not appear discussed at all. Referring to paragraph [0036], making information “available” because a flag is true is not necessarily a permission setting. The specification does not describe unavailable information. Figure 3 and paragraphs [0036] and [0038], at best, describe the flag is used by the image generation system to merely determine whether the operation instruction is a data sharing instruction (true / “yes” at s303) or another user operation instruction (false / “no” at s303 to s313). Specifically, in [0038], “If the value is true, it is determined that data sharing is performed.” This is different from a “permitted”. Step s303 appears to function as a triage step for identifying whether the operation instruction is of a sharing/copy category or a different category. If the operation instruction is determined to be a sharing/copy category, the specific type of copying is determined in steps s304 (image copy) or s310 (character string copy). An example in the specification describes that the flag indicates the operation instruction is either a sharing/copy instruction or a “click” instruction (paragraph [0035]). There is no path in Figure 3 or any suggestion of a situation where the image generating system determines both, (1) that the operation instruction is a sharing/copy instruction, and (2) that the instruction is, or is not, “permitted”. Therefore, the claims do not appear supported by the specification.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly in claims 10 and 12), the determinations that recite:
“in response to [1] the determination indicating that the data sharing is permitted and [2] the operation instruction being a copy instruction [perform the acquiring];
in response to [1] the determination indicating that the data sharing is permitted [perform the transmitting];”
…are not clear. Specifically, the transmitting step does not require the determination that the operation instruction is a copy instruction (missing “[2]”) and therefore will be performed without that determination and thus the information that is transmitted would not have been acquired. Therefore, the limitations cause the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly in claims 11 and 13), “the determination” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
The dependent claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
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) 1, 6, and 9-13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzbee et al. (US 10,552,639 B1, hereafter referred to as “Buzbee”), and further in view of Chauhan et al. (US 2020/0082024 A1, hereafter referred to as “Chauhan”) and Lim (US 8,621,549 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Buzbee teaches an image generation system capable of communicating with a communication apparatus, the system comprising:
at least one memory storing a program; and at least one processor that executes the stored program, which causes the at least one processor to: receive, from the communication apparatus, an operation instruction as a data structure for a Web page, …; More specifically, isolation session operates on a local system (communication apparatus) and sends operation instructions pertaining to a remote application instance (web browser) operating on a remote system (image generation system) (Buzbee, col 7, lines 20-61; col 43, lines 41-63).
…acquire Web page configuration information which exists at coordinates on the Web page for which the copy instruction has been accepted. More specifically, operations/action indicators are received by the remote application instance (web browser on the image generation system). The operations/actions include one or more indicators of a cursor location at a mouse-down event, a cursor location at a mouse-up event, and a user request to cut or copy information (for example, files, objects, graphics, text, or other information) between those two locations (Buzbee, col 43, lines 41-63).
transmit, to the communication apparatus, either the Web page configuration information or information based on the Web page configuration information. More specifically, the operation/action information is sent from the remote application instance to the local isolation session (communication apparatus). For copy actions, the action information may include the information that the isolated application instance copied from its output or from the remote storage system (Buzbee, col 44, lines 44-47).
However, Buzbee, may not explicitly teach every aspect of
…the operation instruction including a flag field indicating whether Web page configuration information acquired at a cloud browser function of the image generation system is permitted to be made available to the communication apparatus;
determine, based on the operation instruction including the flag, whether data sharing between the communication apparatus and the image generation system is permitted;
in response to the determination indicating that the data sharing is permitted and the operation instruction being a copy instruction [perform the acquiring];
in response to the determination indicating that the data sharing is permitted [perform the transmitting];
Chauhan discloses an environment with a remote browser that renders images of locally-requested webpages and sends them to a local browser for display and interaction (Chauhan, abstract, [0013], [0152], [0171]-[0172], [0195]). A setting is managed that either allows or prevents users from copying content viewed at the local browser, construed as the claimed flag (Chauhan, [0068], [0106], [0136], [0144]). This setting is applied to the local browser via a secure container/client application that is received from network devices/cloud services agent (Chauhan, [0067], [0068], [0086], [0092]). Preventing the copying is interpreted as preventing the data sharing.
Lim discloses controlling document access and application usage using centrally managed rules (Lim, abstract). Document access policies control whether users or application programs are allowed to access files and folders on (or managed by) a file server including: create, read, write, delete, copy, move, and rename files; create, open, delete, and rename folders; access and change file or folder attributes; and create, access, change, rename, and delete links or shortcuts associate with files or folders (Lim, col 17, lines 14-27). Figure 24 depicts an embodiment where a server-based policy enforcer intercepts a request from a workstation. The request includes at least an action (copy instruction), document identifier, client IP address, etc. The server-based policy enforcer then determines whether the action (copy instruction) is permitted (Lim, col 60, line 28 – col 62, line 19). Therefore, Lim suggests at least that a server receives an operation instruction that has some sort of indicator (flag) that is determined to be a copy instruction among other actions and determines whether the copy instruction is permitted.
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 Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim that a method for receiving a copy instruction from a local device on content of a web page rendered by a remote device would include that the copy instruction has a flag/setting that can be used to identify the copy instruction and permit the copying of content of the web page at the local device. With Buzbee and Chauhan disclosing a local device receiving remotely rendered images of web pages and handling copy instructions at the local device, with Chauhan and Lim disclosing a remote device managing permissions for copying of content, with Chauhan disclosing that a flag/setting that can prevent the copying of content from a web page if necessary, and with Lim additionally disclosing a flag/indicator that is used by a remote device to both identify a copy instruction and determine permission to copy content, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for receiving a copy instruction from a local device on content of a web page rendered by a remote device would include that the copy instruction has a flag/setting that can be used to identify the copy instruction and permit the copying of content of the web page at the local device in order to reduce chance of a breach in data security by managing whether the instruction is permitted at the remote device. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for receiving a copy instruction from a local device on content of a web page rendered by a remote device.
Regarding claim 6, Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the copy instruction is executed in a state in which a part or whole of the Web page is selected. More specifically, Buzbee’s solution pertains to the copying of content from a displayed webpage (Buzbee, at least, col 20, lines 47-49, Figures 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites the communication apparatus functioning substantially the same as the communication apparatus of the image generation system of claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites the method performed by the image generation system of claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites the method performed by the communication apparatus of claim 9, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the control method of claim 10, therefore the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 13. this claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the control method of the communication apparatus claim 11, therefore the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim(s) 2 and 3, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim, and further in view of Webster et al. (US 2014/0040862 A1, hereafter referred to as “Webster”).
Regarding claim 2, Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim teach the system according to claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the at least one processor id further configured to store the acquired Web page configuration information, and wherein the information based on the Web page configuration information includes a URL of a storage destination where the Web page configuration information is stored.
Webster discloses transferring or otherwise copying a reusable component from a remote source application into a local target application or file system without having to manually access the source code associated with the reusable component (Webster, [0020]). A remote application window 105 is running a web browser (Webster, [0032]). A local application is running a local application window 140 (Webster, [0037]). Information associated with a reusable component, such as the weather monitor 120, in the source application is copied into a system clipboard, such as that used for cut, copy, and paste operations. The clipboard receives information sufficient to instantiate in the target application an instance of the reusable component being copied. For example, the clipboard can receive a name describing the reusable component, a pointer to a library implementing the reusable component, and one or more items of state information describing the state of the reusable component being copied from the source application. The pointer can be any location identifier, including a URI or a URL (Webster, [0043]).
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 Buzbee, Chauhan, and Lim with Webster that a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include storing information of the copied content as a URL. With Buzbee, Chauhan, and Webster disclosing handling copy instructions at remote devices, and with Webster additionally disclosing storing information of the copied content as a URL, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include storing information of the copied content as a URL in order to reduce the amount of data transferred during a copy instruction for added data security and bandwidth savings. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device.
Regarding claim 3, Buzbee, Chauhan, and Lim with Webster teach the system according to claim 2, wherein if the Web page configuration information is an image included in the Web page, the at least one processor is further configured to transmit, to the communication apparatus, the URL of the storage destination where the image is stored. More specifically, the copy instruction creates a pointer to a library storing the copied content, the pointer being a URL, the copied content can be a map image (Webster, [0043]).
Claim(s) 4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim, and further in view of Springer et al. (US 11,682,200 B1 A1, hereafter referred to as “Springer”, filed 7/29/2022).
Regarding claim 4, Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim teach the system according to claim 1, including that the copied information includes files, objects, graphics, text, or other information (Buzbee, col 43, lines 41-63), however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein if the Web page configuration information is a character string included in the Web page, the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the character string to the communication apparatus.
Springer discloses content shared from a remote device during the video conference is output at a display of a local computing device. A portion of the content is selected according to an instruction received from a user of the local computing device while output at the display of the computing device to copy to a destination associated with software running at the computing device (Springer, abstract). The shared content 516 is or otherwise includes text, image, video, and/or other visual content capable of being output for display to participants of the video conference (Springer, col 13, lines 44-46). When text is copied, it is copied to the destination from a cache where it is stored (Springer, col 17, lines 16-39). When images are copied, a hyperlink for the image is identified and text representative of the hyperlink is copied to the destination (Springer, col 23, lines 39-45).
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 Buzbee, Chauhan, and Lim with Springer that a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include when the copied content is text only, directly copying the content to the destination, but when the copied content is an image, copying a hyperlink to the image content to the destination. With Buzbee and Chauhan with Springer disclosing handling copy instructions at remote devices, and with Springer additionally disclosing when the copied content is text only, directly copying the content to the destination, but when the copied content is an image, copying a hyperlink to the image content to the destination, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include when the copied content is text only, directly copying the content to the destination, but when the copied content is an image, copying a hyperlink to the image content to the destination in order to keep the amount of data transferred during a copy instruction minimal for added data security and bandwidth savings. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device.
Claim(s) 5 and 7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2012/0246594 A1, hereafter referred to as “Han”).
Regarding claim 5, Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim teach the system according to claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein if the Web page configuration information is a structured document representing the Web page, the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the structured document to the communication apparatus.
Han discloses a method for managing items on a clipboard of the portable terminal are provided for a user to copy text and data items simultaneously onto the clipboard and paste the copied items individually where the user desires (Han, abstract). The application may be a web browser application which is executed with the display of a webpage provided by a web server. The webpage may include multimedia data items such as still and motion pictures, and text items (Han, [0050]). The first type event may be the event made for copying a part or whole of the source data by blocking (e.g., selecting) a corresponding part of the execution screen and saving the copied data onto the clipboard (Han, [0051]). The second type event may be a copy command event for copying the data item selected by the first type event (i.e. the data item in the region blocked by the first type event) (Han, [0052]). A clip data item is generated (Han, [0053]) which includes the determination that the copied data is a web language-based data item (structured) (Han, [0059]).
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 Buzbee, Chauhan, and Lim with Han that a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include determining that the copied content is a structured document representing a web page and copying the content to the destination. With Buzbee, Chauhan, and Han disclosing handling copy instructions, and with Han additionally disclosing determining that the copied content is a structured document representing a web page and copying the content to the destination, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include determining that the copied content is a structured document representing a web page and copying the content to the destination in order to be able to handle pasting situations when the copied content is web structured and not necessarily able to be handled by the pasting destination. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device.
Regarding claim 7, Buzbee with Chauhan and Lim teach the system according to claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to select a part or whole of the Web Page, and if the copy instruction is executed while no part or whole of the Web page is selected, the Web page configuration information to be copied is a structured document representing the Web page.
Han discloses a method for managing items on a clipboard of the portable terminal are provided for a user to copy text and data items simultaneously onto the clipboard and paste the copied items individually where the user desires (Han, abstract). The application may be a web browser application which is executed with the display of a webpage provided by a web server. The webpage may include multimedia data items such as still and motion pictures, and text items (Han, [0050]). The first type event may be the event made for copying a part or whole of the source data by blocking (e.g., selecting) a corresponding part of the execution screen and saving the copied data onto the clipboard (Han, [0051]). The second type event may be a copy command event for copying the data item selected by the first type event (i.e. the data item in the region blocked by the first type event) (Han, [0052]). A clip data item is generated (Han, [0053]) which includes the determination that the copied data is a web language-based data item (structured) (Han, [0059]).
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 Buzbee, Chauhan, and Lim with Han that a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include determining that the copied content is a structured document representing a web page and copying the content to the destination. With Buzbee and Han disclosing handling copy instructions, and with Han additionally disclosing determining that the copied content is a structured document representing a web page and copying the content to the destination, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device would include determining that the copied content is a structured document representing a web page and copying the content to the destination in order to be able to handle pasting situations when the copied content is web structured and not necessarily able to be handled by the pasting destination. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for receiving a copy instruction web page content at a remote device.
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.
Davey (US 2015/0286616 A1) – when copying image content, a URI pointer is used.
Sun (US 2023/0251884 A1) - copying and pasting files/folders between a client and virtual desktop.
Otake (US 2016/0021271 A1) – an image forming apparatus browses the web by receiving images of web pages rendered by a server hosting a web browser functionality.
Badge (US 2014/0195588 A1) – browsing the web by receiving images of web pages rendered by a server hosting a web browser functionality.
VanBlon (US 2018/0343179 A1) – browsing the web by receiving images of web pages rendered by a server hosting a web browser functionality.
Shah (US 2012/0192176 A1) – host identifies the copy operation received from a client and whether it is supported.
Allinson (US, 11574,331 B2) – a request for a webpage includes a data sharing configuration permission.
Conclusion
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