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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations (See claim 10) in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
With regards to claim 1, it is directed to a statutory category (Method).
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A method of webpage rendering, comprising: obtaining a layout program code corresponding to the webpage; wherein the layout program code is written with at least one of imperative syntax and declarative syntax; parsing the layout program code to obtain a tree component structure; wherein the tree component structure is composed of at least two components; calculating layout information of the webpage based on the tree component structure and adding the layout information to the tree component structure; and in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered, performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas
because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation,
evaluation, judgement, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations (that were bolded above), these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating (parsing) program code (having at least one imperative and declarative syntax) manually to obtain/make a judgment for a tree component structure, 2) evaluating and making a judgment (calculating) of layout information based upon evaluation of tree component structure and making an additional judgement to associate/group layout information to the tree component structure, 3) making a judgement that rendering condition has been satisfied/triggered.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim recites additional elements:
“webpage rendering” and “performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom”. These additional elements recite rendering and hybrid rendering at a high level of generality and are interpreted as that act of displaying data, which is considered insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) for ‘Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)’. The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“obtaining a layout program code corresponding to the webpage”. These additional elements are considered ‘data gathering’ which the courts have identified as insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) for ‘ Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)’. The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claims additional elements of:
“webpage rendering” and “performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom” have been explained in step 2A, prong two to be insignificant extra solution activity and the courts have identified these types of limitations/elements to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“obtaining a layout program code corresponding to the webpage”, which has been explained in step 2A, prong two to be insignificant extra solution activity and the courts have identified these types of limitations/elements to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-8
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e. mental step limitations that recite ‘determining’, ‘traversing’, ‘comparing’, ‘in response to determining’). Additional elements such as the following do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
‘executing’, ‘controlling’ - The courts have found ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
‘obtaining’, ‘.. to render the …’, ‘receiving’, ‘saving’, and ‘rendering’ - these elements/limitations are insignificant extra solution activities (for data gathering, selecting a data source of type of data to be manipulated). The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements addressed above have been explained to ‘apply it’ using a computer and/or add insignificant extra solution activities, for which the courts have found these types of elements as also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 10
With regards to claim 10, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it recites additional elements of ‘processing means’, ‘storage means’, ‘executed by the at least one processing means’, however these elements/limitations are insignificant extra solution activities (for data gathering, selecting a data source of type of data to be manipulated). The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also have found these types of elements as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 11
With regards to claim 11, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it recites additional elements of ‘non-transitory computer readable medium’ and ‘computer program, when executed by processing means’; however these elements/limitations are insignificant extra solution activities (for data gathering, selecting a data source of type of data to be manipulated). The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also have found these types of elements as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis of claims 12-18
Dependent claims 12-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e. mental step limitations that recite ‘determining’, ‘traversing’, ‘comparing’, ‘in response to determining’). Additional elements such as the following do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
‘executing’, ‘controlling’ - The courts have found ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
‘obtaining’, ‘.. to render the …’, ‘receiving’, ‘saving’, and ‘rendering’ - these elements/limitations are insignificant extra solution activities (for data gathering, selecting a data source of type of data to be manipulated). The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements addressed above have been explained to ‘apply it’ using a computer and/or add insignificant extra solution activities, for which the courts have found these types of elements as also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 19-21
Dependent claims 19-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e. mental step limitations that recite ‘determining’, ‘traversing’, ‘comparing’, ‘in response to determining’). Additional elements such as the following do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
‘executing’, ‘controlling’ - The courts have found ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
‘obtaining’, - these elements/limitations are insignificant extra solution activities (for data gathering). The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements addressed above have been explained to ‘apply it’ using a computer and/or add insignificant extra solution activities, for which the courts have found these types of elements as also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buzbee et al (US Application: US 2020/0252413, published: Aug. 6, 2020, filed: Feb. 4, 2020).
With regards to claim 1, Buzbee et al teaches a method of webpage rendering (Fig. 19: A computer implemented method is implemented including at least one or more processor(s) and memory(ies)), comprising:
obtaining a layout program code corresponding to the webpage (paragraph 0070, Fig. 6: layout code includes HTML, Javascript and WebAssembly) ;
wherein the layout program code is written with at least one of imperative syntax and declarative syntax (paragraph 0070: the code includes declarative and imperative such HTML, Javascript and WebAssembly);
parsing the layout program code to obtain a tree component structure (Fig. 6: a Dom tree is obtained from parsing);
wherein the tree component structure is composed of at least two components (Fig. 6, paragraph 0070, 0085, 0086: web components from HTML markup element content and/or WEBGL canvas are supported);
calculating layout information of the webpage based on the tree component structure and adding the layout information to the tree component structure (Fig. 6: layout information is calculated in layer interception 605 and the layer information is added to associated tree structure); and
in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered, performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom (Fig 6: as indicated by arrows, a tree is created via a traversal having components (interpreted as top (‘html’) to subsequent depth (i.e. ‘<iframe>’) and the layer interception is referenced from the associated tree order to produce rendering of the components. As shown in ref 617, a rendering of the components of web content with WebGL/2D is implemented).
With regards to claim 2. (Original) The method of claim 1, Buzbee et al after calculating the layout information of the webpage according to the tree component structure, further comprising: in response to determining that the tree component structure is associated with layout middleware, executing the layout middleware, obtaining additional layout information, and adding the additional layout information to the tree component structure (Fig. 6: the tree component is associated with middleware such as the ‘layer interception’ and draw command generation and they are executed/implemented augment the tree structure. As explained in paragraph 0084, additional layout information is added specific to a positioned object, such as hooking code to structure objects/components of a page (such as the button) to perform specialized target component-actions upon receiving a trigger-button-event).
With regards to claim 3. (Original) The method of claim 1, Buzbee et al after saving the tree component structure with added layout information to a memory, further comprising: in response to determining that an event operation on the webpage is triggered, obtaining first position information of the event operation; determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information; and controlling the target component to perform the event operation (Fig. 6: the tree component is associated with middleware such as the ‘layer interception’ and draw command generation and they are executed/implemented augment the tree structure. As explained in paragraphs 0083 and 0084, additional layout information is added specific to a positioned object, such as hooking code to structure objects/components of a page (such as the button) to perform specialized target component-actions upon receiving a trigger-button-event at the position).
With regards to claim 8. (Original) The method of claim 1, Buzbee et al teaches after adding the layout information to the tree component structure, further comprising: saving the tree component structure with added layout information to a memory, the performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered comprising: in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered, performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure in the memory from top to bottom, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained in the rejection, Buzbee et al was explained to teach that components can include web markup content and webGL content associated with a tree structure and rendering is performed through traversal of tree content that includes from a top element such as ‘html’ to a lower bottom element of ‘<iframe>’. The tree and layout information that include layers are referenced to transition to protocol stage in ref 607 of Fig. 6).
With regards to claim 10. Buzbee et al teaches An electronic device comprising: at least one processing means; storage means, configured for storing one or more programs; the one or more programs, when executed by the at least one processing means, causing the at least one processing means to perform acts of webpage rendering, the acts comprising: obtaining a layout program code corresponding to the webpage; wherein the layout program code is written with at least one of imperative syntax and declarative syntax; parsing the layout program code to obtain a tree component structure; wherein the tree component structure is composed of at least two components; calculating layout information of the webpage based on the tree component structure and adding the layout information to the tree component structure; and in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered, performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11. Buzbee et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium, on which a computer program is stored, the computer program, when executed by processing means, performing operations of webpage rendering, the operations comprising: obtaining a layout program code corresponding to the webpage; wherein the layout program code is written with at least one of imperative syntax and declarative syntax; parsing the layout program code to obtain a tree component structure; wherein the tree component structure is composed of at least two components; calculating layout information of the webpage based on the tree component structure and adding the layout information to the tree component structure; and in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered, performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. (New) The device of claim 10, Buzbee et al teaches wherein after calculating the layout information of the webpage according to the tree component structure, the acts further comprises: in response to determining that the tree component structure is associated with layout middleware, executing the layout middleware, obtaining additional layout information, and adding the additional layout information to the tree component structure, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. (New) The device of claim 10, Buzbee et al teaches wherein after saving the tree component structure with added layout information to a memory, the acts further comprises: in response to determining that an event operation on the webpage is triggered, obtaining first position information of the event operation; determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information; and controlling the target component to perform the event operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. (New) The device of claim 10, Buzbee et al teaches wherein after adding the layout information to the tree component structure, the acts further comprises: saving the tree component structure with added layout information to a memory, the performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered comprising: in response to determining that a rendering operation on the webpage is triggered, performing hybrid rendering of at least two components in the tree component structure in the memory from top to bottom, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. (New) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, Buzbee et al teaches wherein after calculating the layout information of the webpage according to the tree component structure, the acts further comprises: in response to determining that the tree component structure is associated with layout middleware, executing the layout middleware, obtaining additional layout information, and adding the additional layout information to the tree component structure, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. (New) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, Buzbee et al teaches wherein after saving the tree component structure with added layout information to a memory, the acts further comprises: in response to determining that an event operation on the webpage is triggered, obtaining first position information of the event operation; determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information; and controlling the target component to perform the event operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
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) 4, 5, 14, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzbee et al (US Application: US 2020/0252413, published: Aug. 6, 2020, filed: Feb. 4, 2020) in view of Hauser (US Application: US 2010/0287028, published: Nov. 11, 2010, filed: May 5, 2009).
With regards to claim 4. (Original) The method of claim 3, Buzbee et al teaches the determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information comprises traversing components in the tree component structure from top to bottom … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3 (as explained the target component , such as a button is located/positioned in a display based upon a tree augmented with rendering/layout-layer information (to effectively implement a simulated/augmented and traversable render tree)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Buzbee et al does not expressly teach … comparing the position information of the traversed component with the first position information, and in response to determining that the position information of the traversed component matches the first position information, determining the traversed component as the target component and stopping traversing the next component.
Yet Hauser teaches … comparing the position information of the traversed component with the first position information, and in response to determining that the position information of the traversed component matches the first position information, determining the traversed component as the target component and stopping traversing the next component (paragraph 0037-0039, 0052 and 0053, Figure 7: a position of user interaction event associated with an interface component/element is matched against one or more traversed DOM elements/components in a DOM tree to determine a locus of attention directed to a particular location having one of the one or more DOM elements/components as a target component (it is noted that the act of traversal in a tree is interpreted as a type of iterative ‘top’ to ‘bottom’ type traversal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Buzbee et al’s ability to identify an element/component using position of user event, such that the identified element position is identified within a tree position with respect to positioning of user event as taught by Hauser. The combination would have allowed Buzbee et al to have implemented a way to determine attention area based upon user interaction in higher fidelity.
With regards to claim 5. (Original) The method of claim 3, the combination of Buzbee et al and Hauser teaches wherein the determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information comprises: comparing the position information of the at least two components in the tree component structure with the first position information respectively, and determining the component whose position information matches the first position information as the target component, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4 (as explained Buzbee et al’s ability to identify a component based upon input event was modified with Hauser’s ability to further identify a target component based on traversing DOM elements and matching position of user input event/interaction to position of one of the DOM components/elements), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. (New) The device of claim 13, Buzbee et al teaches wherein the determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information comprises: traversing components in the tree component structure from top to bottom, comparing the position information of the traversed component with the first position information, and in response to determining that the position information of the traversed component matches the first position information, determining the traversed component as the target component and stopping traversing the next component, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4 (as explained Buzbee et al’s ability to identify a component based upon input event was modified with Hauser’s ability to further identify a target component based on traversing DOM elements and matching position of user input event/interaction to position of one of the DOM components/elements), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. (New) The device of claim 13, the combination of Buzbee et al and Hauser teaches wherein the determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information comprises: comparing the position information of the at least two components in the tree component structure with the first position information respectively, and determining the component whose position information matches the first position information as the target component, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4 (as explained Buzbee et al’s ability to identify a component based upon input event was modified with Hauser’s ability to further identify a target component based on traversing DOM elements and matching position of user input event/interaction to position of one of the DOM components/elements), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 21. (New) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, the combination of Buzbee et al and Hauser teaches wherein the determining a target component from the tree component structure based on the first position information comprises: traversing components in the tree component structure from top to bottom, comparing the position information of the traversed component with the first position information, and in response to determining that the position information of the traversed component matches the first position information, determining the traversed component as the target component and stopping traversing the next component, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzbee et al (US Application: US 2020/0252413, published: Aug. 6, 2020, filed: Feb. 4, 2020) in view of Fujieda et al (US Application: US 2021/0208562, published: Jul. 8, 2021, filed: Oct. 31, 2018).
With regards to claim 6. (Original) The method of claim 1, Buzbee et al teaches wherein the at least two components comprise: self- drawing components, webpage components, and WebGL components; the performing hybrid rendering of at least two types of components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom, … [and] … calling hybrid rendering middleware to render the webpage component or WebGL component , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Buzbee et al does not expressly teach … comprises: in response to determining that a component is a self-drawing component, self-drawing rendering the self-drawing component; and in response to determining that a component is a webpage component or a WebGL component, calling hybrid rendering middleware to render the webpage component or WebGL component.
Yet Fujieda et al teaches … comprises: in response to determining that a component is a self-drawing component, self-drawing rendering the self-drawing component; and in response to determining that a component is a webpage component or a WebGL component, calling hybrid rendering middleware to render the webpage component or WebGL component (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0049: middleware determines if an element is a SVG web page component (that can include self-drawing /drawing-creation content with user/developer-drawing selection-settings in a drafting/drawing interface) or a Canvas WebGL component and rendering is logic is appropriately called to send data to a rendering screen ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Buzbee et al’s ability to render a web page using middleware, such that the middleware could have included an ability to determine whether to render a web page component or a WebGL component, as taught by Fujieda et al. The combination would have allowed Buzbee et al to have implement a way to implement optimize rendering on a terminal device running a web browser (Fujieda et al, paragraph 0012)
With regards to claim 7. (Original) The method of claim 1, the combination of Buzbee et al and Fujieda et al teaches further comprising: receiving user-custom settings for a universal self-drawing component through a self- drawing interface to obtain a custom self-drawing component, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6 (Fujieda et al was explained in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0049 to teach that middleware determines whether an element is a SVG web page component (that can include self-drawing /drawing-creation content with user/developer-drawing selection-settings in a drafting/drawing interface) or a Canvas WebGL component and rendering is logic is appropriately called to send data to a rendering screen), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. (New) The device of claim 10, the combination of Buzbee et al and Fujieda et al teaches wherein the at least two components comprise: self- drawing components, webpage components, and WebGL components; the performing hybrid rendering of at least two types of components in the tree component structure with added layout information from top to bottom comprises: in response to determining that a component is a self-drawing component, self-drawing rendering the self-drawing component; and in response to determining that a component is a webpage component or a WebGL component, calling hybrid rendering middleware to render the webpage component or WebGL component, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. (New) The device of claim 10, the combination of Buzbee et al and Fujieda et al teaches wherein the acts further comprises: receiving user-custom settings for a universal self-drawing component through a self- drawing interface to obtain a custom self-drawing component, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al (US Patent: 11561887): This reference teaches a test script debugging framework and UI rendering tree.
Strimpel et al (US Application: US 2021/0279403): This reference teaches web element retargeting.
Heller et al (US Application: US 2015/0161277): This reference teaches implementing a browser add on to render pages/documents that are incompatible with the current generation of browser.
Baudish et al (US Patent: 7721197): This reference teaches adaptive rendering for small screen computing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights