DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on January 16, 2024.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending.
Claims 8-10 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 13-21 have been added.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
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 12-21 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 12 recites the limitation "a memory" in line 1 and 5. It is unclear whether the second instance of “a memory” is the same memory introduced previously or a different “memory”.
Claims 13-21 depend on the rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies and thus, are rejected for at least the same reasons.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li Pengfei (“Flutter hybrid stack routing practice and optimization”, Mar 2021).
With respect to Claim 1, Li Pengfei discloses:
in response to a first trigger operation in a target application, (opening a flutter page, Page 2, 1. Background and Overview, lines 15-16; when the page life cycle changes (first trigger), Page 6, 1. Overall framework, lines 4-5) acquiring, from a
memory, a target cross-platform engine instance constructed in advance by a self-defined operation (attach/detach a single Engine instance (target cross-platform engine instance), Page 6, 1. Overall framework, lines 4-5; in a single-engine browser solution, only the same (constructed in advance by a self-defined operation) Activity/ViewController (target cross-platform engine instance) is used, Page 4, 2. Single-engine browser solution, lines 4-8; only one Engine instance is held and only one isolate is created (constructed in advance by a self-defined operation), 2. Single-engine browser solution, line 9) wherein the first trigger operation is used to request a jump from a native page of the target application to a target cross-platform page; (hybrid stack involves the jump (first trigger) between flutter pages (target cross-platform page) and native pages, Page 1, 1. Background and Overview, lines 7-8)
and based on the target cross-platform engine instance, loading the target cross-platform page. (pass the URL and params to notify the Dart layer to switch pages, Page 6, 1. Overall framework, lines 4-5; perform Flutter page rendering (target cross-platform page) based on the received page URL and params, Page 6, 1. Overall framework, lines 7-8)
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei further disclose:
wherein the target cross-platform engine instance comprises a target Flutter engine instance. (single-engine browser solution represented by FlutterBoost and Thrio to display Flutter pages, 2. Single-engine browser solution, Page 4, 2. Single-engine browser solution, lines 1-6)
Claims 12 and 21 are system claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 1 and 10) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 10.
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.
Claims 2, 4-9, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li Pengfei (“Flutter hybrid stack routing practice and optimization”, Mar 2021) in view of Wenhao Wu (“React Native vs Flutter, cross-platform mobile application frameworks”, Mar 2018).
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei further discloses:
further comprising:
in response to [an] operation of the target application, constructing the target cross-platform engine instance by the self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance; (in response to opening/switching to a page, detaching/attaching (constructing by a self-defined operation) the single engine, Pages 2 and 4, 1. Background and Overview, lines 15-16 and 2. Single-engine browser solution, lines 4-12)
and storing the target cross-platform engine instance into the memory. (in a single-engine browser solution, only the same (constructed in advance by a self-defined operation) Activity/ViewController (target cross-platform engine instance) is used (must be stored somewhere in memory in order to be reused), Page 4, 2. Single-engine browser solution, lines 7-8; holding (storing) only one Engine instance, Page 4, 2. Single-engine browser solution, line 9)
Li Pengfei does not explicitly disclose:
[an] operation is a startup operation
However, Wenhao Wu discloses:
[an] operation is a startup operation (Home page for movie: This page is used as a starting point of the application. In this page we fetch data about the most popular movies, as well as the currently playing movies, from the server. User can navigate to the detail page of the movie by clicking its relevant item., Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wenhao Wu into the teaching of Li Pengfei to include [an] operation is a startup operation in order to generate a page used as a starting point for an application (Wenhao Wu, Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14)
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 2 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei do not discloses:
further comprising:
based on the target cross-platform engine instance, displaying a first preset page
corresponding to the target application, wherein the first preset page is a home page corresponding to the target application.
However, Wenhao Wu discloses:
further comprising:
based on the target cross-platform engine instance, displaying a first preset page
corresponding to the target application, wherein the first preset page is a home page corresponding to the target application. (Home page for TV show: This page contains data about the most popular TV shows. It has a similar structure compares to the first page. Additionally, this page and the home page are two children of the same bottom navigation tab bar, Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 15-18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wenhao Wu into the teaching of Li Pengfei to include based on the target cross-platform engine instance, displaying a first preset page corresponding to the target application, wherein the first preset page is a home page corresponding to the target application in order to generate/display a page used as a home page for an application. (Wenhao Wu, Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14)
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 2 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei do not discloses:
further comprising:
in response to the startup operation of the target application, displaying a second
preset page corresponding to the target application, wherein the second preset page is a startup page corresponding to the target application.
However, Wenhao Wu discloses:
further comprising:
in response to the startup operation of the target application, displaying a second
preset page corresponding to the target application, wherein the second preset page is a startup page corresponding to the target application. (Home page for movie: This page (second preset page) is used as a starting point of the application. In this page we fetch data about the most popular movies, (based on the target cross-platform engine instance) as well as the currently playing movies, from the server. User can navigate to the detail page of the movie by clicking its relevant item., Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wenhao Wu into the teaching of Li Pengfei to include in response to the startup operation of the target application, displaying a second preset page corresponding to the target application, wherein the second preset page is a startup page corresponding to the target application in order to generate/display a page used as a starting point for an application. (Wenhao Wu, Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14)
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei do not discloses:
further comprising:
in response to determining that a second preset page corresponding to the target
application has been displayed and a first preset page corresponding to the target application has not been displayed, displaying a third preset page.
However, Wenhao Wu discloses:
further comprising:
in response to determining that a second preset page corresponding to the target
application has been displayed and a first preset page corresponding to the target application has not been displayed, displaying a third preset page. (user navigates/displays the home page for a movie (second preset page) and not the home page for TV show (first preset page) and the user can navigate to the detail page (third preset page) to obtain detail information of a single movie/TV show, Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14 and 19-22)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wenhao Wu into the teaching of Li Pengfei to include in response to determining that a second preset page corresponding to the target application has been displayed and a first preset page corresponding to the target application has not been displayed, displaying a third preset page in order to allow a user to navigate to a page that contains additional detail about a particular item. (Wenhao Wu, Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14 and 19-22)
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations of Claim 6 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei do not discloses:
further comprising:
in response to displaying the first preset page, removing the third preset page.
However, Wenhao Wu discloses:
further comprising:
in response to displaying the first preset page, removing the third preset page. (user navigates/displays the home page for a TV show (first preset page) after displaying the detail page of a movie (third preset page) (removes the third preset page from view), Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-22)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wenhao Wu into the teaching of Li Pengfei to include in response to displaying the first preset page, removing the third preset page in order to allow a user to navigate/display different pages.
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations of Claim 2 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei further discloses:
further comprising:
initializing the target cross-platform engine instance. (when a page life cycle changes, the single engine (target cross-platform engine) is detached/attached (initialized), Page 6, 1. Overall framework, lines 4-5)
With respect to Claim 9, all the limitations of Claim 6 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei do not disclose:
wherein the third preset page has same display content as the second preset page.
However, Wenhao Wu discloses:
wherein the third preset page has same display content as the second preset page. (the detail page presents detail information of a single movie item selected from the home page for movie based on an item ID (same display content), Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-22)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wenhao Wu into the teaching of Li Pengfei to include wherein the third preset page has same display content as the second preset page in order to allow a user to navigate to a page that contains additional detail about a particular item. (Wenhao Wu, Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14 and 19-22)
Claims 13 and 15-20 are system claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 2 and 4-9) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2 and 4-9.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li Pengfei (“Flutter hybrid stack routing practice and optimization”, Mar 2021) in view of Wenhao Wu (“React Native vs Flutter, cross-platform mobile application frameworks”, Mar 2018) and in further view of Hilerio et al. (US 2008/0148367).
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 2 have been addressed above; and Li Pengfei and Wenhao Wu do not disclose:
wherein acquiring, from the memory, the target cross-platform engine instance constructed in advance by the self-defined operation comprises:
acquiring, from the memory, a global variable corresponding to the target cross-
platform engine instance, and
based on the global variable, determining the target cross-platform engine instance in the memory,
wherein the global variable is defined when the target cross-platform engine instance is constructed.
However, Hilerio et al. disclose:
acquiring, from the memory, a global variable corresponding to the target
instance, (determining a previously created process instance to retrieve using an instance ID (global variable), Paragraphs 23 and 59)
and based on the global variable, determining the target instance in the memory, (retrieving the state for a previously created process instance from a data store (global variable), Paragraph 23)
wherein the global variable is defined when the target instance is constructed. (saving the process instance’s state/ID (global variable) at a datastore, Paragraphs 23 and 59)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hilerio et al. into the target cross-platform engine instance as taught by Li Pengfei and Wenhao Wu to include acquiring, from the memory, a global variable corresponding to the target
instance, and based on the global variable, determining the target instance in the memory, wherein the global variable is defined when the target instance is constructed in order to be able to save the state of a given process instance for later retrieval/use. (Hilerio et al., Abstract, lines 3-9)
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to the method claims above (Claim 3) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moscatiello et al. (US 2022/0058063) disclose providing a hybrid mobile application.
Jose et al. (US 10,564,988) disclose deploying cross-platform applications to mobile devices with native and web components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2197