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 amendments filed on May 15, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12 and 14-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 12, 14-16 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
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 1, 4-10, 12 and 15-21 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 1, Li Pengfei discloses:
in response to [an] operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a 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)
storing the target cross-platform engine instance into a memory. (in a single-engine browser solution, only the same 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)
in response to a first trigger operation in the 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 the
memory, the target cross-platform engine instance constructed in advance by the 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)
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 1 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 1 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 1 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)
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 15-21 are system claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 1 and 4-10) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 4-10.
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 1 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Li in view of Wu fails to disclose the features "in response to a startup operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance; storing the target cross-platform engine instance into a memory" in amended claim 1. Emphasis added.
Li (in Page 4, 2. Single-engine browser solution, lines 4-6, and in Page 6, 1. Overall framework, lines 1-5) discloses:
That is, Activity/ ViewController is used as the browser that carries the Dart page. When the page is switched, the single engine is detached/attached, and the Dart layer is notified of the page switch to achieve Engine reuse.
The overall framework still uses a single-engine browser solution. Using Activity/ ViewController to carry Dart pages, the routing is returned to the native side, and the only single-engine instance is maintained.
When the page life cycle changes, attach/detach a single Engine, and pass the url and params to notify the Dart layer to switch pages.
In Li, all routing jumps between pages are controlled by the native layer. When a switch between different cross-platform pages (the first trigger) is required, the native layer performs an attach or detach operation on the Flutter engine instance. For example, during the attach operation, the native layer passes a URL and params to the cross-platform layer. After receiving the URL and params from the native layer, the cross-platform layer decides which page to load based on this information.
Hence in Li, detaching/attaching of a single engine occurs during a page jump phase after it is determined that a page switch is needed (i.e., after the first trigger). In contrast, in amended claim 1, the target cross-platform engine instance is constructed and stored into the memory before the first trigger operation, so that the target cross-platform engine instance can be acquired from the memory in response to the first trigger operation. Moreover, in Li, detaching/attaching of a single engine is an operation to reuse an existing engine and does not involve constructing an engine by a self-defined operation. Furthermore, in Li, optimization is performed on the basis of existing single-engine solutions (such as FlutterBoost and Thrio). The engine construction manner in these solutions typically depends on a default mechanism of the Flutter framework, rather than a "self-defined operation". Thus, Li fails to disclose the features "in response to a startup operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a self-defined operation of a cross- platform engine instance" in amended claim 1. Emphasis added.
In Li, the holding (storing) of an engine instance involves a reuse under the premise that the engine already exists, rather than storing a target cross-platform engine instance constructed by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance. Thus, Li fails to disclose the features "storing the target cross-platform engine instance into a memory" in amended claim 1.
Therefore, Li fails to disclose the features "in response to a startup operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance; storing the target cross-platform engine instance into a memory" in amended claim 1. Emphasis added.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that Li’s “detaching/attaching of a single engine is an operation to reuse an existing engine and does not involve constructing an engine by a self-defined operation”. The claims do not go into detail about what is involved in “constructing” the engine and what it means to be a “self-defined operation”. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that being able to detaching/attaching of a single engine instance for reuse means that the single engine instance was constructed initially at some point in time by the system and/or a user (self-defined operation).
Further, the Applicant argues that Li’s “optimization is performed on the basis of existing single-engine solutions (such as FlutterBoost and Thrio). The engine construction manner in these solutions typically depends on a default mechanism of the Flutter framework, rather than a ‘self-defined operation’. However, even if Li’s engine construction manner uses a “default mechanism”, there is nothing in the current claim language that precludes a “default mechanism” from being a “self-defined operation”. The claims do not provide any detail on what is a “self-defined operation”.
Further still, the Applicant argues that Li’s “holding (storing) of an engine instance involves a reuse under the premise that the engine already exists, rather than storing a target cross-platform engine instance constructed by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance.” However, as responded to above, the claims do not provide detail on what a “self-defined operation” entails. Li discloses the ability to reuse an engine instance. Therefore, Li must disclose that the engine instance is stored in memory in order to be able to reuse the engine instance at a later time.
Further still, the Applicant argues that “Li fails to disclose the features "in response to a startup operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance; storing the target cross-platform engine instance into a memory". However, as can be seen in the updated §103 rejection, the Examiner has relied on a combination of Li and Wu to disclose the above limitation.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Wu (in Page 13, 3 Case Study, lines 10-14) discloses:
1. 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.
In Wu, the term "starting point" is only used to describe a navigational role of the movie home page in the example application, i.e., a first page seen by a user after opening the application, which does not refer to a system starting process of the application. Thus, Wu fails to disclose the trigger condition of "a startup operation of a target application" in amended claim 1. Emphasis added. Furthermore, after entering the movie home page, the user navigates to a movie detail page by clicking on a relevant item. Wu does not involve any description of how to construct an engine instance when the application starts up.
Thus, Wu fails to provide a technical teaching of "in response to a startup operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance" in amended claim 1. Emphasis added.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §103 rejection to claim 1 above, the Examiner has not relied on Wu to disclose “in response to a startup operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance.” Wu was used to modify the specific operation taught by Li to be a “startup operation”. Wu discloses the creating of a “home page” as a starting point (startup operation) of an application. This involves the fetching of data and displaying of relevant data on the page (constructing a page).
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Hilerio is not cited for the features "in response to a startup operation of a target application, constructing a target cross-platform engine instance by a self-defined operation of a cross-platform engine instance; storing the target cross-platform engine instance into a memory" in amended claim 1.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentable over Li, Wu and Hilerio, whether in combination or on their own, and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1. For the same reason as claim 1, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 12. Additionally, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 3- 10, and 14-21 for at least the reason that each of these claims depends upon claims 1 and 12.
Examiner’s Response:
Please see response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
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 LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30am-3:30pm.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights