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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/3/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 remain pending within the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Parmar is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, applicant asserts Parmar does not disclose a proxy server and therefore is unrelated. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Parmar discloses the system for displaying browser pages in figure 2. As shown in figure 2 of Parmar, it includes a client/user device connected to 2 servers (server 270 connected to server 280, sever 280 connected to client 290) between the source of data provided. The common industry definition of a proxy server is an intermediary device or program that provides communication and other services between a client and server (NIST SP 800-113 under proxy). In addition, Parmar discloses an application providing and navigating notetaking documents through the system (Parmar, para [0086], note taking resource products stored on distribution server; Parmar, para [0432-433], navigating note documents). Documents, and their corresponding pages, provided over a network are interpreted as webpages. Therefore, the method is shown to be “applied to a proxy server having a remote browser”, specifically fig. 2 element 280.
It is noted that the citations to specific pages, columns, lines or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2123).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments regarding the secondary reference Brown. 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., “change regions” require content within the region to change) 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). For instance, the “change” in the “change region” can be interpreted as the “change” being caused by compressing the data.
Examiner would like to point out that “change regions” is not defined within the claims or specification. Examiner recommends amending the first limitation of “acquiring…” to include a clause of “wherein change regions are…” to define that the content within the region is changing.
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.
Claims 20 and 21 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.
Claim 20 is recites the limitation "sending page of the remote browser" in the second limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “page” is referring the page of claim 1 or an additional page.
Claim 21 is recites the limitation "displaying a page of the local browser" in the second limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “page” is referring the page of claim 12 or an additional page.
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, 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(s) 1-3, 5, 10-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar United States Patent Application Publication US 2021/0056251 in view of Brown United States Patent US 11,995,871.
Regarding claim 1, Parmar discloses a method for displaying browser pages, applied to a proxy server comprising a remote browser (Parmar, para [0509], interface for displaying windows; Parmar, para [0050], linkable content allows browsing), and comprising:
acquiring first pixel data corresponding to change regions according to a page currently displayed by the remote browser (Parmar, para [0142-147], system receives video stream for each presenter);
compressing the first pixel data to obtain second pixel data (Parmar, para [0141, 148-149], compresses data based on system bandwidth);
sending the second pixel data to a client, such that the client displays a corresponding browser page according to the second pixel data (Parmar, para [0157], processed videos distributed to clients);
Parmar does not disclose:
acquiring third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, the third pixel data being configured to supplement pixels lost when compressing the first pixel data; and
sending the third pixel data to the client, such that the client displays a corresponding browser page according to the third pixel data.
Brown discloses:
acquiring third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, the third pixel data being configured to supplement pixels lost when compressing the first pixel data (Brown, col 26, rows 38-52, fig 11, element 1102, determines first pixel block within a frame of image data is encoded with lossy compression. If it is less than a threshold 1108 re-encode pixel block in subsequent frame using lossless compression 1110); and
sending the third pixel data to the client, such that the client displays a corresponding browser page according to the third pixel data (Brown, col 26, rows 10-20, and col 6, rows 20-56, fig 11 steps performed by service and provided to client, shown in fig 1 and 11).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the transfer of data to allow modifications to the data and provide information of the change based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been higher image quality or less resources used (Brown, col 1, rows 14-39).
Claim 12 and dependent claim 13 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and are thus similarly rejected.
Claims 14, 15, 16 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and are thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, Parmar in view of Olsen discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 1. Brown additionally discloses wherein the method further comprises: before compressing the first pixel data, determining a compression rate according to a current working pressure of the proxy server, the working pressure comprising at least one of a transmission pressure and a processing pressure; and compressing the first pixel data comprises: compressing the first pixel data according to the compression rate (Brown, col 8-9, rows 62-67 and 1-16, enables higher compression rate initially to reduce computing resources used (interpreted as pressure)).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the transfer of data to allow modifications to the data and provide information of the change based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been higher image quality or less resources used (Brown, col 1, rows 14-39).
Regarding claim 3, Parmar in view of Olsen discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 2. Brown additionally discloses wherein the working pressure comprises the transmission pressure, and the method further comprises at least one of: updating the transmission pressure according to a sending condition of the second pixel data after sending the second pixel data, and updating the transmission pressure according to a sending condition of the third pixel data after sending the third pixel data (Brown, col 26, rows 38-52, more resources used with lossless compression. Lossless compression generated when a threshold is met, representing a condition).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the transfer of data to allow modifications to the data and provide information of the change based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been higher image quality or less resources used (Brown, col 1, rows 14-39).
Regarding claim 5, Parmar in view of Olsen discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 2. Brown additionally discloses wherein the working pressure comprises the processing pressure, and the method further comprises: before determining the compression rate according to the current working pressure of the proxy server, determining the processing pressure according to sizes of all the change regions in which no corresponding first pixel data is acquired currently (Brown, col 26, rows 21-37, lossy compression determined based on a size of the image data corresponding to the block of pixels).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the transfer of data to allow modifications to the data and provide information of the change based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been higher image quality or less resources used (Brown, col 1, rows 14-39).
Regarding claim 10, Parmar in view of Olsen discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 1. Brown additionally discloses wherein the method further comprises: before acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, dividing the change regions to obtain a plurality of tile regions; and sequentially acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to each tile region according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser (Brown, col 2, rows 31-56, image data broken into blocks of data representing regions).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the transfer of data to allow modifications to the data and provide information of the change based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been higher image quality or less resources used (Brown, col 1, rows 14-39).
Regarding claim 11, Parmar in view of Olsen discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 1. Brown additionally discloses wherein the method further comprises: before acquiring first pixel data corresponding to a change region relative to a previous displayed page according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, monitoring a page change event, the page change event comprising at least one of a source station loading event and a user interaction event associated with page change; and after the page change event is detected, determining the change regions corresponding to the page change event (Brown, col 4, rows 1-11, not re-encoded until block changes a certain amount).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the transfer of data to allow modifications to the data and provide information of the change based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been higher image quality or less resources used (Brown, col 1, rows 14-39).
Regarding claim 19, Parmar in view of Olsen discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 3. Brown additionally discloses wherein the working pressure comprises the processing pressure, and the method further comprises: before determining the compression rate according to the current working pressure of the proxy server, determining the processing pressure according to sizes of all the change regions in which no corresponding first pixel data is acquired currently (Brown, col 7-8, rows 62-67 and 1-7, constraints on size of data objects represents a processing pressure).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the transfer of data to allow modifications to the data and provide information of the change based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been higher image quality or less resources used (Brown, col 1, rows 14-39).
Claims 4, 6-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar United States Patent Application Publication US 2021/0056251 in view of Brown United States Patent US 11,995,871 in further view of Cao United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0244029.
Regarding claim 4, Parmar in view of Brown discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 2. Parmar in view of Brown does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 4.
Cao discloses wherein the working pressure comprises the processing pressure; the method further comprises: before acquiring the first pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to a page currently displayed by the remote browser, adding first tasks to a preset first task queue after determining that the change regions are available, the first tasks being configured to trigger corresponding instructions to perform acquiring the first pixel data corresponding to the change regions corresponding to the currently-acquired first tasks according to a page currently displayed by the remote browser; and the method further comprises: before determining the compression rate according to the current working pressure of the proxy server, determining the processing pressure according to the quantity of the first tasks in the first task queue (Cao, para [0088, 0096, 0021], with regards to fig 4, element 420, queuing of each frame based on trigger condition; Cao, para [0097], various trigger conditions including network thresholds).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compression of Parmar in view of Brown to include the organization of queuing the data. The motivation for doing so would have been to account for transmission performance (Cao, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Parmar in view of Brown discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 1. Parmar in view of Brown does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 6.
Cao discloses wherein the method further comprises: before generating acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, adding second tasks to a preset second task queue after determining that the change regions are available; and acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, comprises: acquiring the second tasks from the second task queue based on a timer; and triggering corresponding instructions according to the currently-acquired second tasks to execute acquiring third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser (Cao, para [0088, 0096, 0021], with regards to fig 4, element 420, queuing of each frame based on trigger condition; predetermined threshold can be based on time)
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compression of Parmar in view of Brown to include the organization of queuing the data. The motivation for doing so would have been to account for transmission performance (Cao, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Parmar in view of Brown in further view of Cao discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 6. Cao additionally discloses wherein acquiring the second tasks from the second task queue based on the timer, comprises: acquiring the second tasks from the second task queue after the timer is triggered; and the method further comprises: after triggering the corresponding instructions according to the currently-acquired second tasks to execute acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, detecting whether at least one second task is cached in the second task queue; and in response to the at least one second task being cached in the second task queue, acquiring a next second task from the second task queue to trigger a corresponding instruction till no second task is cached in the second task queue (Cao, para [0088, 0096, 0021], with regards to fig 4, element 420, queuing based on trigger condition; predetermined threshold can be based on time).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compression of Parmar in view of Brown to include the organization of queuing the data. The motivation for doing so would have been to account for transmission performance (Cao, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Parmar in view of Brown discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 3. Parmar in view of Brown does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 18.
Cao discloses wherein the working pressure comprises the processing pressure;the method further comprises: before acquiring the first pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to a page currently displayed by the remote browser, adding first tasks to a preset first task queue after determining that the change regions are available, the first tasks being configured to trigger corresponding instructions to perform acquiring the first pixel data corresponding to the change regions corresponding to the currently-acquired first tasks according to a page currently displayed by the remote browser; and the method further comprises: before determining the compression rate according to the current working pressure of the proxy server, determining the processing pressure according to the quantity of the first tasks in the first task queue (Cao, para [0088, 0096, 0021], with regards to fig 4, element 420, queuing of each frame based on trigger condition; Cao, para [0097], various trigger conditions including network thresholds).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compression of Parmar in view of Brown to include the organization of queuing the data. The motivation for doing so would have been to account for transmission performance (Cao, para [0002]).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar United States Patent Application Publication US 2021/0056251 in view of Brown United States Patent US 11,995,871 in further view of Kim United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0325667.
Regarding claim 8, Parmar in view of Brown discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 1. Parmar in view of Brown does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 8.
Kim discloses wherein the method further comprises: before acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, detecting whether delay exists between the page currently displayed by the remote browser and a page displayed when acquiring, by the remote browser, the first pixel data corresponding to the change regions; and acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser, comprises: in response to no delay existing, acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to the change regions according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser (Kim, para [0110-111], threshold time for receiving status to determine whether buffer is in a failure mode or not and corresponding action of allowing storage and continuing if not in a failure mode).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the queuing to include failure modes based on a timer threshold. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the video system is retrieving data properly (Kim, para [0110]).
Regarding claim 9, Parmar in view of Brown in further view of Kim discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 8. Parmar in view of Brown does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 9.
Kim additionally discloses wherein the method further comprises: in response to delay existing between the page currently displayed by the remote browser and the page displayed when acquiring, by the remote browser, the first pixel data corresponding to the change region, acquiring the third pixel data corresponding to a next change region according to the page currently displayed by the remote browser (Kim, para [0110-111], threshold time for receiving status to determine whether buffer is in a failure mode or not and corresponding action of allowing storage and continuing if not in a failure mode).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the queuing to include failure modes based on a timer threshold. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the video system is retrieving data properly (Kim, para [0110]).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar United States Patent Application Publication US 2021/0056251 in view of Brown United States Patent US 11,995,871 in further view of Robotham United States Patent US 6,704,024.
Regarding claim 20, Parmar in view of Brown in further view of Kim discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 1. Parmar in view of Brown does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Robotham discloses loading and displaying page content of the remote browser (Robotham, col 9, rows 4-16, renders visual content of page on server); and sending page of the remote browser displayed to the client in form of image (Robotham, col 9, rows 40-52, server transmits rendered content, bitmap, to client. Bitmap interpreted as an image)
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to have a server render images prior to delivery of web content. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the client is less susceptible to viruses and other unwanted interference from outside sources (Robotham, col 1, rows 47-58).
Regarding claim 21, Parmar in view of Brown in further view of Kim discloses the method for displaying the browser pages according to claim 12. Parmar in view of Brown does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Robotham discloses receiving image data from a proxy server (Robotham, col 9, rows 40-52, server transmits rendered content, bitmap, to client. Bitmap interpreted as an image); and displaying a page of the local browser in form of image according to the image data received (Robotham, col 9, rows 53-67, client generates image data received on a display)
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to have a server render images prior to delivery of web content. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the client is less susceptible to viruses and other unwanted interference from outside sources (Robotham, col 1, rows 47-58).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HOPE C SHEFFIELD whose telephone number is (303)297-4265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00pm PT.
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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/HOPE C SHEFFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights