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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is based on pre-brief appeal conference decision mailed on February 17, 2026, which indicates that the prosecution has been reopened. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding art rejection filed on January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. The 101 rejection is maintained as the argument regarding 101 rejection are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues claim 1 recites patent eligible subject matter at least because it integrate3s the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
In response examiner respectfully disagrees. The entire claimed limitations as recited can be done by the generic computer component and the courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites, receiving, by a processor and from a client device, a query for a first web page of a plurality of web pages; generating, by the processor a response to the query, wherein the response comprises: shared programmatic content that (i) forms part of each of the plurality of web pages, (ii) is cacheable by the client device, and (iii) is at least partly renderable by the client device in connection with queries for any one of the plurality of web pages, a first page-specific programmatic content that forms part of the first web page, and a predefined token that: (i) comprises a character string, (ii) is identifiable by the client device, (iii) delineates the share programmatic content in the response from the first page-specific programmatic content in the response, and (iv) indicates that the shared programmatic content is cacheable by the client device; and transmitting, by the processor and to the client device, the response.
The claim recited the limitation of “a first page-specific programmatic content that forms part of the first web page, and a predefined token that: (i) comprises a character string, (ii) is identifiable by the client device, (iii) delineates the share programmatic content in the response from the first page-specific programmatic content in the response, and (iv) indicates that the shared programmatic content is cacheable by the client device” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can mentally generate response from the received data (by reading) which can be associated web page as recited and the information as generated in mind can be renderable with help of pencil and paper. User can also identify token mentally by reading that information. Hence, the limitations are a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Even though if the above limitations are considered as additional limitation, it still fall under mental process since those limitation can be done with generic computer component.
The claim recites three additional elements: receiving, from a client device, a query for a first web page of a plurality of web pages, generating, by the processor a response to the query, wherein the response comprises: shared programmatic content that (i) forms part of each of the plurality of web pages, (ii) is cacheable by the client device, and (iii) is at least partly renderable by the client device in connection with queries for any one of the plurality of web pages, and transmitting, to the client device, the response. The receiving and generating steps as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the generating step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). The transmitting step as recited is merely transferring the response data for rendering which is nothing more than data gathering and outputting. Hence, transmitting step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving a query, generating response, and transmitting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached by the client device, is at least partly renderable by the client device (i) based on reception of an event that references a second web page of the plurality of web pages and (ii) before the client device receives a second page-specific programmatic content that forms part of the second web page, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the additional limitations of receiving, from the client device, a second query for the second web page, wherein the second query is based on the event; generating a second response to the second query, wherein the second response comprises: the shared programmatic content, the second page-specific programmatic content, and the predefined token; and transmitting, to the client device, the second response, wherein the second web page is renderable by the client device (i) based on the second page-specific programmatic content and the shared programmatic content as represented by the response and (ii) independently of the shared programmatic content as represented by the second response, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached by the client device, is configured to allow the client device to begin rendering the shared programmatic content after transmitting, based on reception of the event, a second query for the second web page, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached in a cache memory of the client device, is configured to allow the client device to (i) read the shared programmatic content from the cache memory using a first thread of the client device, and (ii) transmit a second query for the second web page using a second thread of the client device, and wherein the first thread and the second thread are configured to execute in parallel, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content is at least partly renderable by the client device in that the shared programmatic content defines a user interface component, wherein a partial rendering of the user interface component is displayable based on the shared programmatic content and by way of a user interface of the client device prior to displaying a complete rendering of the user interface component based on the second page-specific programmatic content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the predefined token indicates to the client device that the shared programmatic content is cacheable by (i) having a predetermined value and (ii) being placed in the response at a predetermined position relative to the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the additional limitations of transmitting, to the client device and before receiving the query for the first web page, initialization instructions configured to deploy, on a web browser application of the client device, a service worker configured to (i) monitor communications of the web browser application and (ii), based on monitoring the communications, write the shared programmatic content to a cache memory of the client device and read the shared programmatic content from the cache memory, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content in the response is delineated from the first page-specific programmatic content in the response by the predefined token being positioned between the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the first web page is renderable by the client device based on the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein each respective web page of the plurality of web pages comprises (i) the shared programmatic content and (ii) a corresponding page-specific programmatic content that defines the respective web page and differs across the plurality of web pages, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 and includes all the limitations of claim 13. Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the plurality of web pages have been constructed using an application framework, wherein the shared programmatic content defines at least part of the application framework, and wherein corresponding page-specific programmatic content defines the respective web page using the application framework, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the additional limitations of receiving, from the client device, a second query for a second web page of the plurality of web pages; generating a second response to the second query, wherein the second response comprises: an updated shared programmatic content usable by the client device to replace the shared programmatic content cached by the client device, a second page-specific programmatic associated with the second web page, and an updated predefined token that is identifiable by the client device, different from the predefined token, delineates the updated shared programmatic content in the second response from the second page-specific programmatic content in the second response and indicates that the updated shared programmatic content is cacheable by the client device; and transmitting, to the client device, the second response, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15 and includes all the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the updated shared programmatic content defines an updated version of at least part of an application framework using which the plurality of web pages have been constructed, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached by the client device, is readable from a cache memory of the client device in connection with a given query for a given web page of the plurality of web pages based on a determination that the given web page is one of the plurality of web pages each of which includes the shared programmatic content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content comprises one or more of: (i) web page markup language content, (ii) style sheet language content, or (iii) a scripting language content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 19-20, they have similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 19 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 21 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the predefined token indicates to the client device that the shared programmatic content is cacheable by (i) having a predetermined value and (ii) being placed in the response at a predetermined position relative to the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 19 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 22 recites the same abstract idea of rendering response of user request. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the shared programmatic content in the response is delineated from the first page-specific programmatic content in the response by the predefined token being positioned between the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungck et al. (Pub. No. : US 20090262741 A1) in the view of Mameri et al. (Pub. No. : US 20120096058 A1)
As to claim 1 Jungck teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a processor and from a client device, a query for a first web page of a plurality of web pages (paragraph [0040], [0048], [0049], [0066]: A server 108, 110, 112 typically responds to requests from clients 102, 104, 106 over the network 100, wherein the Servers 108, 110, 112 may be World Wide Web servers serving Web pages and/or Web content to the clients 102, 104, 106);
generating, by the processor, a response to the query (paragraph [0040]: responds to requests from clients), wherein the response comprises:
shared programmatic content (paragraph [0069]: The cache server 208 saves/caches Web pages and other content that clients 102, 104, 106, who share the cache server) that
(i) forms part of each of the plurality of web pages (paragraph [0066]: When a client requests a Web page from the server 108, the server 108 must serve the HTML code and the associated image/multimedia data to the client 102, 104, 106),
(ii) is cacheable by the client device (paragraph [0069]: A cache server 208 is a server computer or alternatively implemented in software directly on the client 102, 104, 106) and
(iii) at least partly renderable by the client device in connection with queries for any one of the plurality of web pages (paragraph [0049]: display on a World Wide Web browser),
a first page-specific programmatic content that forms part of the first web page (paragraphs [0050], [0052]: A Web site is a related collection of Web files/pages that includes a beginning HTML file called a home page. A company or an individual tells someone how to get to their Web site by giving that person the address or domain name of their home page (i.e. a first page-specific programmatic content)), and
transmitting, by the processor and to the client device, the response (paragraph [0070]: provide the requested content from the cache).
Jungck does not explicitly disclose but Mameri teaches a predefined token (paragraph [0038]: Cacheable data module 524 (i.e. predefined token) may identify files that can be cached locally. Examiner interpretation is based on applicant disclosure paragraph [0125] where it recited “The predefined token may operate as a cache marker”) that:
(i) comprises a character string (Paragraphs [0005], [0023], [0030]: Embodiments are directed to enhanced browser caching by employing a file identifier attribute at server level for deterministic marking, wherein the attribute may be a parameter appended to the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) identifying the location of the requested file and may also include (in addition to the above listed examples) a query string on a link, a particular character, a file name, a sub-site, or comparable ones),
(ii) is identifiable by the client device (paragraph [0033]: a web front end server may execute the algorithm to track cacheable files using a file identifier attribute. If a file is cacheable, one or more of the client devices 411-413 may cache the file),
(iii) delineates the shared programmatic content in the response from the first page-specific programmatic content in the response (paragraph [0028]: client 330 may request a web page to render for a user. The web page may include one or more links to files (or other forms of data) some of which may be locally cacheable. Web server 320 may identify those files using a file identifier attribute), and
(iv) indicates that the shared programmatic content (paragraphs [0028], [0033]: The web page may include one or more links to files (or other forms of data) some of which may be locally cacheable. Web server 320 may identify those files using a file identifier attribute).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jungck by adding above limitation as taught by Mameri to enhanced browser caching (Maneri, paragraph [0005]).
As to claim 2 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached by the client device, is at least partly renderable by the client device (i) based on reception of an event that references a second web page of the plurality of web pages and (ii) before the client device receives a second page-specific programmatic content that forms part of the second web page (paragraphs [0050], [0074], [0100]).
As to claim 3 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 2. Jungck teaches receiving, from the client device, a second query for the second web page, wherein the second query is based on the event; generating a second response to the second query, wherein the second response comprises: the shared programmatic content, the second page-specific programmatic content, and the predefined token; and transmitting, to the client device, the second response, wherein the second web page is renderable by the client device (i) based on the second page-specific programmatic content and the shared programmatic content as represented by the response and (ii) independently of the shared programmatic content as represented by the second response (paragraphs [0048], [0050], [0070], [0074], [0100]).
As to claim 4 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 2. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached by the client device, is configured to allow the client device to begin rendering the shared programmatic content after transmitting, based on reception of the event, a second query for the second web page (paragraphs [0050], [0074], [0100]).
As to claim 5 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 2. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached in a cache memory of the client device, is configured to allow the client device to (i) read the shared programmatic content from the cache memory using a first thread of the client device, and (ii) transmit a second query for the second web page using a second thread of the client device, and wherein the first thread and the second thread are configured to execute in parallel (paragraphs [0042], [0054], [0050], [0070]).
As to claim 6 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 2. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content is at least partly renderable by the client device in that the shared programmatic content defines a user interface component, wherein a partial rendering of the user interface component is displayable based on the shared programmatic content and by way of a user interface of the client device prior to displaying a complete rendering of the user interface component based on the second page-specific programmatic content (paragraph [0070], [0100]).
As to claim 8 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches wherein the predefined token indicates to the client device that the shared programmatic content is cacheable by (i) having a predetermined value and (ii) being placed in the response at a predetermined position relative to the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content (paragraph [0050], [0069]-[0070])
As to claim 9 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches transmitting, to the client device and before receiving the query for the first web page, initialization instructions configured to deploy, on a web browser application of the client device, a service worker configured to (i) monitor communications of the web browser application and (ii), based on monitoring the communications, write the shared programmatic content to a cache memory of the client device and read the shared programmatic content from the cache memory (paragraph [0048], [0069]-[0070])
As to claim 11 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content in the response is delineated from the first page-specific programmatic content in the response by the predefined token being positioned between the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content (paragraph [0032], [0044]).
As to claim 12 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches wherein the first web page is renderable by the client device based on the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content (paragraphs [0050], [0074], [0100]).
As to claim 13 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches wherein each respective web page of the plurality of web pages comprises (i) the shared programmatic content and (ii) a corresponding page-specific programmatic content that defines the respective web page and differs across the plurality of web pages (paragraphs [0069], [0050]).
As to claim 14 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 13. Jungck teaches wherein the plurality of web pages have been constructed using an application framework, wherein the shared programmatic content defines at least part of the application framework, and wherein corresponding page-specific programmatic content defines the respective web page using the application framework (paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0069]-[0070], [0074]).
As to claim 15 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches receiving, from the client device, a second query for a second web page of the plurality of web pages; generating a second response to the second query, wherein the second response comprises: an updated shared programmatic content usable by the client device to replace the shared programmatic content cached by the client device, a second page-specific programmatic content that forms part of the second web page, and an updated predefined token that is identifiable by the client device, different from the predefined token, delineates the updated shared programmatic content in the second response from the second page-specific programmatic content in the second response and indicates that the updated shared programmatic content is cacheable by the client device; and transmitting, to the client device, the second response (paragraph [0048], [0069]-[0070], [0047]).
As to claim 16 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 15. Jungck teaches wherein the updated shared programmatic content defines an updated version of at least part of an application framework using which the plurality of web pages have been constructed (paragraph [0096], [0115]).
As to claim 17 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content, when cached by the client device, is readable from a cache memory of the client device in connection with a given query for a given web page of the plurality of web pages based on a determination that the given web page is one of the plurality of web pages each of which includes the shared programmatic content (paragraph [0069]-[0070]).
As to claim 18 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 1. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content comprises one or more of: (i) web page markup language content, (ii) style sheet language content, or (iii) a scripting language content (paragraph [0049]).
As to claims 19-20, they have similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
As to claim 21 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 19. Jungck teaches wherein the predefined token indicates to the client device that the shared programmatic content is cacheable by (i) having a predetermined value and (ii) being placed in the response at a predetermined position relative to the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
As to claim 22 Jungck together with Maneri teaches a method according to claim 19. Jungck teaches wherein the shared programmatic content in the response is delineated from the first page-specific programmatic content in the response by the predefined token being positioned between the shared programmatic content and the first page-specific programmatic content (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights