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 action is responsive to communications: amendment/argument filed 23 February 2026.
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 12 are independent.
Please note that William Bashore is the new examiner of record for this case. Please update future correspondence accordingly.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguchi (JP 2015118619A - hereinafter Seguchi), in view of Adler III et al. (US 2011/0258535 hereinafter – Adler).
As per independent claim 1, Seguchi teaches a web font service method of a font server (See Seguchi, Abstract), the web font service method comprising:
generating an HTML (HyperText Makeup Language) tag for executing a JavaScript-based web font module, the web font module being configured to collect texts for each font within a web page of a website, generate cascading style sheet (CSS) information, and add the CSS information to website information;
receiving web font request information from a client provided with website information including an HTML tag for executing a web font module; and transmitting web font information to the client based on the web font request information (See Seguchi, Page 4, paragraphs 2-5, describing that the homepage production company 9 creates a Web page 901 and applies to the font distribution server 3 for a Web page distribution site (Web server 2) (step S201). The font distribution server 3 displays the specific font using the subset font on the Web browser of the user terminal 1 when the confirmation of the contract information is obtained with reference to the database 301 including the contract information regarding the homepage production company 9. A script file (for example, a JS file) in which a script for writing is described is generated (step S202). The homepage production company 9 confirms the URL of the script file (step S203) and incorporates the script file into the web page so as to refer to the script file. (Step S204). When the homepage viewer accesses the Web server 2 from the Web browser of the user terminal 1 (step S205), the Web browser downloads the corresponding script file stored in the font distribution server 3, and the script (for example, Java (for example, Java ( (Registered trademark) script) is started and the type of font provided to the font distribution server 3 is inquired, the location where the original font is used is analyzed, and the location where the specific font is used (font name) , Character string) is extracted and transmitted to the font distribution server 3 (steps S206 and S207)).
Seguchi does not specifically teach generating an HTML tag for executing said JavaScript module and providing the generated HTML tag to a web server; However, Adler teaches a method for downloading Web fonts incorporating an @font-face tag withing a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS), which in turn is encompassed withing the HTML 5.0 specification (see Adler at least paragraph [0026], [0027]). Adler also teaches that the converted document assets and HTML 5.0 elements are provided/stored on a host server (see Adler at least figure 5 items 580, 585, paragraph [0061], [0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to apply Adler to Seguchi, providing Seguchi the benefit of increased versatility that Adler’s HTML 5.0 provides.
wherein the web font module generates the CSS information including location information of a web font based on text information obtained by collecting texts on the web page of the website for each font and adds the CSS information to the website information (See Seguchi, Page 4, paragraphs 7-9, describing that the font distribution server 3 generates a script file in which a script for displaying the specific font of the Web page using the subset font in the Web browser of the user terminal 1 is described (Step S303). The Web browser of the user terminal 1 downloads the script file generated by the font distribution server 3 (step S304), analyzes the content (step S305), and information on the location where the corresponding specific font is used (step S305). The HTML and CSS are changed so as to conform to the font typeface and target character string (step S306), and a subset font corresponding to the specific font is requested from the font distribution server (step S306). When the font distribution server 3 refers to the referrer of the HTTP request header and confirms the URL of the link source Web page and collates information registered in advance, the site authentication is obtained (step S308). The corresponding specific font is sub-set, file conversion suitable for the type of Web browser obtained from the HTTP request header is performed (step S309), and the generated subset font file is transmitted to the user terminal 1 (step S310), and
the client transmits the web font request information generated by recognizing the generated CSS information to the font server (See Seguchi, Page 4, paragraph 10, describing that the Web browser of the user terminal 1 receives the subset font file that matches the Web page, and displays the Web page including the specific font in the font intended by the creator).
Seguchi does not specifically teach wherein the font server requests a source font from a source font server, receives an encrypted source font from the source font server, decodes the encrypted source font to obtain the web font, and generates the web font module based on the obtained web font. However, Adler teaches downloading web fonts, whereby a server parses a document for text and font assets, extracts said fonts and encrypts accordingly. The fonts are eventually converted into Web-readable font formats (see Adler at least Figure 5 items 530, 560-564, 585, 590, paragraph [0073], [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to apply Adler to Seguchi, providing Seguchi the benefit of increased security (e.g. DRM) that Adler’s encryption provides (see Adler paragraph [0073].
As per dependent claim 2, Seguchi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Seguchi also discloses performing, by the font server, a web font service authentication procedure using the received web font request information and pre-stored user authentication information (See Seguchi, Abstract, and page 2, paragraph 6).
As per dependent claim 5, Seguchi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Seguchi also discloses wherein: the web font module determines whether there is a text corresponding to a replacement font among the collected texts, and when text corresponding to the replacement font is included, the web font module separates the text corresponding to the replacement font to generate text information for each font (See Seguchi, page 4, paragraph 18).
As per dependent claim 6, Seguchi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Seguchi also discloses receiving, by the font server, service usage information for using the web font service from the user; obtaining a web font based on the service usage information; generating a web font module dedicated to the user based on the obtained web font; and generating an HTML tag for executing the web font module and providing the HTML tag to the user (See Seguchi, page 4, paragraph 8).
As per dependent claim 7, Seguchi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Seguchi also discloses wherein the transmitting of the web font information to the client comprising, generating a font subset based on the web font request information, and transmitting web font information including the generated font subset to the client (See Seguchi, Abstract, and claim 1).
As per independent claim 8, Seguchi discloses a web font service method of a web server (See Seguchi, Abstract), the web font service method comprising:
receiving, from a font server, an HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tag for executing a JavaScript-based web font module, the web font module being configured to collect texts for each font within a web page of a website, generate cascading style sheet (CSS) information, and add the CSS information to website information:
receiving a website access request from a client; and
providing the website information including the received HTML tag for executing the web font module to the client information (See Seguchi, Page 4, paragraphs 2-5, describing that the homepage production company 9 creates a Web page 901 and applies to the font distribution server 3 for a Web page distribution site (Web server 2) (step S201). The font distribution server 3 displays the specific font using the subset font on the Web browser of the user terminal 1 when the confirmation of the contract information is obtained with reference to the database 301 including the contract information regarding the homepage production company 9. A script file (for example, a JS file) in which a script for writing is described is generated (step S202). The homepage production company 9 confirms the URL of the script file (step S203) and incorporates the script file into the web page so as to refer to the script file. (Step S204). When the homepage viewer accesses the Web server 2 from the Web browser of the user terminal 1 (step S205), the Web browser downloads the corresponding script file stored in the font distribution server 3, and the script (for example, Java (for example, Java ( (Registered trademark) script) is started and the type of font provided to the font distribution server 3 is inquired, the location where the original font is used is analyzed, and the location where the specific font is used (font name) Character string) is extracted and transmitted to the font distribution server 3 (steps S206 and S207),
Seguchi does not specifically teach generating an HTML tag for executing said JavaScript module and providing the generated HTML tag to a web server; However, Adler teaches a method for downloading Web fonts incorporating an @font-face tag withing a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS), which in turn is encompassed withing the HTML 5.0 specification (see Adler at least paragraph [0026], [0027]). Adler also teaches that the converted document assets and HTML 5.0 elements are provided/stored on a host server (see Adler at least figure 5 items 580, 585, paragraph [0061], [0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to apply Adler to Seguchi, providing Seguchi the benefit of increased versatility that Adler’s HTML 5.0 provides.
wherein the web font module generates cascading style sheet (CSS) information including location information of a web font based on text information obtained by collecting texts on a web page of a website for each font and adds the CSS information to the website information (See Seguchi, Page 4, paragraphs 7-9, describing that the font distribution server 3 generates a script file in which a script for displaying the specific font of the Web page using the subset font in the Web browser of the user terminal 1 is described (Step S303). The Web browser of the user terminal 1 downloads the script file generated by the font distribution server 3 (step S304), analyzes the content (step S305), and information on the location where the corresponding specific font is used (step S305). The HTML and CSS are changed so as to conform to the font typeface and target character string (step S306), and a subset font corresponding to the specific font is requested from the font distribution server (step S306). When the font distribution server 3 refers to the referrer of the HTTP request header and confirms the URL of the link source Web page and collates information registered in advance, the site authentication is obtained (step S308). The corresponding specific font is sub-set, file conversion suitable for the type of Web browser obtained from the HTTP request header is performed (step S309), and the generated subset font file is transmitted to the user terminal 1 (step S310), and
the client transmits web font request information generated by recognizing the generated CSS information to a font server (See Seguchi, Page 4, paragraph 10, describing that the Web browser of the user terminal 1 receives the subset font file that matches the Web page, and displays the Web page including the specific font in the font intended by the creator).
Seguchi does not specifically teach wherein the HTML tag font server requests … receives an encrypted source font from the source font server, decodes the encrypted source font. However, Adler teaches downloading web fonts, whereby a server parses a document for text and font assets, extracts said fonts and encrypts accordingly. The fonts are eventually converted into Web-readable font formats (see Adler at least Figure 5 items 530, 560-564, 585, 590, paragraph [0073], [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to apply Adler to Seguchi, providing Seguchi the benefit of increased security (e.g. DRM) that Adler’s encryption provides (see Adler paragraph [0073].
As per dependent claim 11, Seguchi discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Claim 11 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 5 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 5.
As per independent claim 12, Seguchi discloses a font service system of providing a web font service, the font service system comprising (See Seguchi, Figure 1 and Abstract).
Independent claim 12 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of independent claim 1 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 1.
As per independent claim 13, Seguchi discloses a computer-readable recording medium in which a program of performing the web font service method according to claim 1 is stored (See Seguchi, Abstract).
Independent claim 13 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of independent claim 1 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguchi and Adler, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Osamu ("Japanese Web Fonts Distribution System Available for Dynamic Content" hereinafter Osamu).
As per dependent claim 3, Seguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Seguchi does not teach expressly wherein the web font module removes a duplicate text among the collected texts and sorts the texts in Unicode order to generate de-identified text information for each font, however, Osamu teaches this limitation (See Osamu, Pages 1-2, "3 Dynamic Font Delivery System", describing that the received character strings are sorted in Unicode order, and that only the necessary part is cut out from the font data stored in the SVG format that removes duplication, and a subset font is created). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the removal of duplicate text of Osamu with the web font module of Seguchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to respond to dynamic changes in content and distribute subsets of fonts of the necessary parts when needed, as taught by Osamu (See Osamu, Page 1, column 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Osamu with Seguchi for the benefit of responding to dynamic changes in content and distributing subsets of fonts of the necessary parts when needed to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As per dependent claim 9, Seguchi teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Claim 9 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 3 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguchi, Adler, and Osamu as applied to claims 3 and 9 above, and further in view of Veen (U.S. Publication 2012/0016964 A1).
As per dependent claim 4, Seguchi, Adler and Osamu teach the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Seguchi, Adler and Osamu do not teach expressly wherein, when a length of a text among the sorted texts exceeds a predetermined length, the web font module divides the corresponding text to generate text information for each unit font, however, Veen teaches this limitation (See Veen, paragraph 0031, describing that a font file may be divided into a plurality of files and recombined in a browser using a CSS font stack). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the font stack of Veen with the sorted texts of Seguchi, Adler and Osamu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an equitable basis on which to compensate foundries and/or individual font designers, as taught by Veen (See Veen, paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veen with Seguchi, Adler and Osamu for the benefit of providing an equitable basis on which to compensate foundries and/or individual font designers to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As per dependent claim 10, Seguchi, Adler and Osamu teach the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Claim 10 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 4 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 4.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See, MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM BASHORE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 5:30pm EST.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571) 272-4088. 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.
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights