DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed 2 December 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”) has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are pending.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following newly amended/added limitation: “the client engine operates within the browser window.”
Applicant has indicated that support for the amendments can be found in pages 3 and 8 of the specification. Reply 6. However, the referenced portion of the specification does not disclose the above limitation.
Additionally, the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I). With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for a client engine to perform operations within a browser window.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: “wherein … the client engine operates within the browser window.” It is illogical and technically impossible for a client engine to operate within a browser window. A browser window is merely a displayed graphical user interface (address bar, tabs, etc.). In contrast, a client engine (e.g., JavaScript code) operates within a rendering process or sandbox managed by the browser.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rempell et al., US 2018/0225099 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Rempell discloses a user interface platform development system, comprising:
A development tool, configured for providing a WYSIWYG-style screen file development environment and generating a screen file source that organizes a user interface platform with structured components. Rempell teaches an authoring platform including a full-feature WYSIWYG editor. Rempell ¶¶ 67, 90. Rempell’s editor allows for generating an application comprising one or more pages of structured content. Id. ¶¶ 78-81.
A server, providing resources for developing a screen file with the development tool, and with which developed screen file sources are registered. Rempell teaches a server providing resources (e.g., web services in a web component registry) to the authoring platform. Rempell ¶¶ 66-70. Additionally, the generated application may be stored at a server for distribution to individual devices. Id. ¶ 51.
A client, having a client engine to load the screen file source that is received from the server as response, and configured for executing in a browser window to provide the user interface platform according to an associated device. Rempell teaches a client engine (“Player”) that loads an application. Rempell ¶¶ 48-54. The application user interface may be presented via a web browser. Id. ¶¶ 49, 251, claims 30, 33.
Wherein the development tool configures the screen file as a single page application type. Rempell teaches the generated application may be of a single page application type. Rempell ¶¶ 76, 78, 174, claim 1.
Wherein the screen file is divided into a static resource and a dynamic resource that make up a web page. Rempell teaches the application may comprise “instructions for generating the display on screen.” Rempell ¶ 52. These instructions include the presentation of static content, such as an image (e.g., logo). Id. ¶¶ 56, 108, Table I. Additionally, these instructions include the presentation of dynamic content (e.g., content produced by the output of web services). Id. ¶¶ 75-76.
Wherein when loading the web page in a client’s browser, the static resource is downloaded only once, and then the dynamic resource is rendered in a partial area. Rempell teaches that the generated application and its instructions are downloaded once. Rempell ¶ 51. Rempell teaches rendering a dynamic resource as GUI components, such as an RSS display list. Id. ¶¶ 75-81.
Wherein the dynamic resource is a portion of content that includes a portion that must be displayed on a current screen and is set to be displayed through script execution after being loaded and rendered only when requested. Rempell teaches dynamic content (e.g., content produced by the output of web services) that relies on the execution of scripts to be dynamically updated. Rempell ¶ 205. The dynamic content is downloaded and rendered in response to a request at runtime. Id. ¶¶ 63, 73.
Wherein the static resource includes common scripts and common resources. Rempell teaches the static content may include common resources, such as an image (e.g., logo). Rempell ¶¶ 56, 108, Table I. Additionally, the static content may include common scripts (e.g., a library of JavaScript methods) that may be applied to objects. Id. ¶¶ 139, 142, Table II.
[Wherein] the client engine operates within the browser window. Rempell teaches that the player may be activated and run in a browser. Rempell ¶¶ 49, 251, claims 30, 33.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Rempell discloses wherein the screen file has an effective scope set for all unit screens constituting the web page, so that an entire web page is implemented as one single page. Rempell teaches the generated application may be of a single page application type. Rempell ¶¶ 76, 78, 174, claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Rempell discloses wherein in a screen execution process performed by the client, creating the browser window, loading and executing the client engine, loading and executing the common script, and loading the common resource are executed only once, and loading a screen resource, rendering the screen, and executing a screen script are subsequently repeated by request. Rempell teaches loading an application comprising static content (i.e., a common resource). Rempell ¶¶ 52-53, 108, Table I. Rempell teaches rendering dynamic content (i.e., a screen resource). Id. ¶¶ 75-79. Rempell teaches executing a script. Id. ¶ 143.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Rempell discloses wherein the structured components comprise at least one of Page component, user defined component (UDC), Project UDC, and MSA UDC. Rempell teaches an Application Page component. Rempell ¶ 109.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rempell et al., US 2018/0225099 A1, in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Rempell with Official Notice renders obvious wherein the client comprises a MSA message broker configured for corresponding to a microservice architecture and a micro frontend architecture having a cross-MSA resource sharing function. Rempell teaches a client that is configured to communicate with a web service (e.g., a messaging service) via APIs. Rempell ¶¶ 71-77. Rempell does not explicitly disclose communicating with a microservice architecture or a micro frontend architecture. However, Official Notice is taken of web services employing a microservice architecture or a micro frontend architecture that may be communicated with via an API. See e.g., Johnson et al., US 2017/0187785 A1.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Rempell’s process of communicating with a web service via APIs with the Official Notice of communicating with a microservice architecture or a micro frontend architecture via APIs. Such a modification would increase utility by allowing the client to communicate with a wider range of web services.
Response to Arguments
The prior rejections of the pending claims under § 112(b) have been withdrawn based on the corresponding amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the novelty of the pending claims have been fully considered. Applicant argues that “In Rempell, the player loads the entire application as a whole, whereas in the present invention, the client initially loads only the static resources and renders the dynamic “only when requested” (as defined in claim 1).” Reply 9. However, as explained above in the detailed rejection, Rempell anticipates the loading of static resources and rendering dynamic content only when requested. Specifically, Rempell teaches an application may comprise “instructions for generating the display on screen.” Rempell ¶ 52. These instructions include the presentation of static content, such as an image (e.g., logo). Id. ¶¶ 56, 108, Table I. Additionally, these instructions include the presentation of dynamic content (e.g., content produced by the output of web services). Id. ¶¶ 75-76. The dynamic content is downloaded and rendered in response to a request at runtime. Id. ¶¶ 63, 73. Accordingly, the dynamic content may be dynamically updated. Id. ¶ 205.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Johnson et al., US 2017/0187785 A1, discloses a microservice using APIs to communicate.
Engstrand et al., US 2019/0197148 A1, discloses the use of microservices.
Bourhani et al., US 2021/0192106 A1, discloses the use of micro frontends.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171