DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the election filed on May 27, 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 12-24 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 12-20 are elected.
Claims 8-11 are canceled.
Claims 21-24 are added.
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 .
Internet Communications
Without a written authorization for Internet communications by the Applicant in place, the USPTO cannot communicate with the Applicant via email and will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122, such as claimed subject matter in an interview agenda or proposed claim amendments for an Examiner’s Amendment.
Therefore, in the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to authorize Internet communications with the USPTO by using Form PTO/SB/439 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms). The form may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (Patent Center) using the document description “Internet Communications Authorized” to facilitate processing. The written authorization for Internet communications must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization for Internet communications may not be submitted via an email. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, the drawings, and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.01(I).
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. Where an explicit definition is provided by the Applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)(A). Any such lexicographic definition for a term will be expressly noted by the Examiner in the prior art rejections of the claims.
Claim Mapping
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Examiner has provided annotations in the prior art rejections of the claims to aid the Applicant in understanding the Examiner’s interpretations of the claimed invention and the prior art, such as emphasizing notable and relevant portions of the prior art citations, using item-to-item matching to the prior art citations, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art citations, and/or clearly explaining the Examiner’s interpretation as to how a prior art citation maps to the claim language, especially when there is no one-to-one matching of terms. Furthermore, the annotations are provided in the prior art rejections of the claims at the Examiner’s discretion where the Examiner deemed to be appropriate and necessary.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: OPTIMIZING WEBPAGES USING LOAD-TIME DOCUMENT OBJECT MODELS (DOMs).
Claim Objections
Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 706(II), 2103(I)(C), and 2173.02(II) and 37 CFR § 1.75(a) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 706(II) DEFECTS IN FORM OR OMISSION OF A LIMITATION; CLAIMS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE
When an application discloses patentable subject matter and it is apparent from the claims and the applicant’s arguments that the claims are intended to be directed to such patentable subject matter, but the claims in their present form cannot be allowed because of defects in form or omission of a limitation, the examiner should not stop with a bare objection or rejection of the claims. The examiner’s action should be constructive in nature and when possible should offer a definite suggestion for correction.
MPEP § 2103(I)(C) Review the Claims
The claims define the property rights provided by a patent, and thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention. Examiners must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of the claim before determining if the claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he name of the game is the claim.”).
MPEP § 2173.02(II) THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS OF CLARITY AND PRECISION
The examiner’s focus during examination of claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is whether the claim meets the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available. When the examiner is satisfied that patentable subject matter is disclosed, and it is apparent to the examiner that the claims are directed to such patentable subject matter, the examiner should allow claims which define the patentable subject matter with the required degree of particularity and distinctness. Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of terms should be permitted so long as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is satisfied. Examiners are encouraged to suggest claim language to applicants to improve the clarity or precision of the language used, but should not insist on their own preferences if other modes of expression selected by applicants satisfy the statutory requirement.
37 CFR § 1.75(a) Claim(s).
(a) The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
According to the portions of the MPEP and the patent rule provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that a claim must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. In accordance with MPEP §§ 706(II) and 2173.02(II) and in the claim objections hereinafter, the Examiner has provided suggested claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims in order to improve the clarity or precision of the claim language used. Hence, doing so would help the Examiner in reviewing the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Examiner believes that making claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims will promote a clearer understanding of the claims and ease of readability for the readers.
Claims 1, 3-7, 12, and 14-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 14, and 18-21 recite “the loaded page.” It should read -- the loaded source page --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 1, 4, 12, 16, 21, and 23 recite “the DOM objects.” It should read -- the DOM objects of the DOM --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 1, 12, and 21 recite “the page.” It should read -- the loaded source page --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 3 and 14 contain a typographical error: the word “comprise” should read -- comprises --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 contains a typographical error: the colon (:) after the word “wherein” should be deleted.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 5, 15, and 23 recite “the function.” It should read -- the function of the style objects or the active programming objects --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 6, 17, and 24 contain a typographical error: a comma (,) should be added after the limitation “style sheet files.”
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 6, 17, and 24 recite “consolidating […] style sheet files.” It should read -- consolidating […] the style sheet files --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 7 and 18-20 recite “the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters.” It should read -- the one or more consolidation and compression parameters --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 contains a typographical error: “not impaired be consolidation” should read -- not impaired by consolidation --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 contains a typographical error: “generating the equivalent page code further comprises” should read -- wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 22 contains a typographical error: the semicolon (;) at the end of the claim should be replaced with a period (.).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 13, 15, 18-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 13 recite the limitation “proximate” at line 4. The term “proximate” is a relative term, which renders the claims indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claims nor does the specification provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the scope of the claimed invention. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently does not give any patentable weight to this limitation for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 5 and 23 recite the limitation “executing the consolidation operation […] the consolidation operation to consolidate […]” at lines 6 and 10, respectively. The claims are rendered vague and indefinite because the limitation “consolidation operation” is repeated twice. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “executing the consolidation operation […] to consolidate […]” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 5, 15, and 23 recite the limitation “the style objects or the active programming objects function” at lines 4 and 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a function of the style objects or the active programming objects” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 5, 15, and 23 recite the limitation “the CSS objects” at lines 7, 6, and 11, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “the style objects” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 7 and 18-20 recite the limitation “inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models” at line 3. The claims are rendered vague and indefinite because the limitation “one or more machine learning models” is repeated twice. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 7 and 18-20 recite the limitation “the comparison of the one or more results” at lines 11 and 10, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a comparison of the one or more results” for the purpose of further examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-7 and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
The BRI of Claim 1 is a method for loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM; reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page; generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page; and sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM;
(b) reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page; and
(c) generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a loaded page in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to parse a representation of a loaded page. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the loaded page in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to reorder the DOM objects. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the reordered DOM objects in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate equivalent page code. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); and
(2) sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); and
(2) sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
The additional elements (1) and (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to load and send a source page code. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) determining dependencies between active programming elements and DOM objects; and
(c) relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprise:
(b) identifying an active programming element within the loaded page; and
(c) modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying graphical elements referenced by the DOM objects, style objects, or active programming objects; and
(c) responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying style objects or active programming objects;
(c) determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation; and
(d) executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files; and
(c) consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models;
(c) receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters;
(d) applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a plurality of browser, device, and bandwidth configurations associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and
(e) selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.
Claims 2-7 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 4-7 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 7 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 2-7 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-7 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • + • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 12 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
The BRI of Claim 12 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media for loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); determining the DOM is fully formed and a loaded page has been generated; parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM; reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page; generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page; and sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 12 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations:
(a) determining the DOM is fully formed and a loaded page has been generated;
(b) parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM;
(c) reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page; and
(d) generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a DOM in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine the DOM. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a loaded page in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to parse a representation of a loaded page. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the loaded page in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to reorder the DOM objects. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the reordered DOM objects in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate equivalent page code. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and one or more processors are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(2) loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); and
(3) sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
The additional elements (2) and (3) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(2) loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); and
(3) sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
The additional elements (2) and (3) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to load and send a source page code. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-20 are dependent on Claim 12, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) determining dependencies between active programming elements and DOM objects; and
(c) relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprise:
(b) identifying an active programming element within the loaded page; and
(c) modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying style objects or active programming objects;
(c) determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired be consolidation; and
(d) consolidating, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the CSS objects or the active programming objects into a combined object.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitations:
(a) [wherein] generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying graphical elements referenced by the DOM objects, style objects, or active programming objects; and
(c) responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files; and
(c) consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models;
(c) receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters;
(d) applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a browser configuration associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and
(e) selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models;
(c) receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters;
(d) applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a device configuration associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and
(e) selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models;
(c) receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters;
(d) applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a bandwidth configuration associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and
(e) selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.
Claims 13-20 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 15-20 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 18-20 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 13-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 12 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 12-20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • + • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 21 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
The BRI of Claim 21 is a method for loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM; reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page; generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page including: identifying an active programming element within the loaded page; determining dependencies between active programming elements and DOM objects; and relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code; and sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 21 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitations:
(a) parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM;
(b) reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page; and
(c) generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page including:
(d) identifying an active programming element within the loaded page;
(e) determining dependencies between active programming elements and DOM objects; and
(f) relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a loaded page in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to parse a representation of a loaded page. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the loaded page in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to reorder the DOM objects. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the reordered DOM objects in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate equivalent page code. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the loaded page in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to identify an active programming element. And the limitation (e) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating active programming elements and DOM objects in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine dependencies between the active programming elements and the DOM objects. And the limitation (f) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating page code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to relocate active programming elements. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); and
(2) sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM); and
(2) sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
The additional elements (1) and (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to load and send a source page code. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 22-24 are dependent on Claim 21, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprise modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 23 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying graphical elements referenced by the DOM objects, style objects, or active programming objects;
(c) responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network;
(d) identifying style objects or active programming objects;
(e) determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation; and
(f) executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 24 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
(b) identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files; and
(c) consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file.
Claims 22-24 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 23 and 24 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 22-24 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 21 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 21-24 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,413,046 (hereinafter “Mocanu”) in view of US 2013/0254675 (hereinafter “de Andrade”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Mocanu is generally directed to optimizing the displaying of a rich web user interface (UI) to a user (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, de Andrade is generally directed to receiving application data in a client-incompatible format and converting at least a portion of the application data into an alternate client-compatible format (Abstract). Thus, Mocanu and de Andrade are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 1, Mocanu discloses:
A method (col. 4 lines 4-6, “The disclosed subject matter provides a […] method for reducing website load time of a rich web UI of a web application (e.g., page flip times and/or the initial load time).”) comprising:
loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM) (col. 3 lines 37-41, “The browser may render a web document (e.g., rich web User Interface (UI)) for display to a user by incrementally referencing the DOM tree structure and rendering the DOM tree elements (e.g., upon detecting that the application has updated the DOM tree) [loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM)] (emphasis added).”);
parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM (col. 5 lines 65-67 to col. 6 lines 1-13, “As illustrated, the rich web UI is generated by first receiving a base page of the rich web UI (e.g., an HTML page) and parsing the page [parsing a representation of the loaded page]. In response to parsing the base page, the application renders a base node 201 within the DOM tree 200 representing a frame A of the rich web UI. During this stage, the browser references the DOM tree and begins the display rendering process by displaying the frame A. Next, the DOM tree is updated to include an additional node 202 representing an element B placed within the frame A. As the DOM tree is updated, the browser detects the updated DOM node and re-renders all or part of the document 205 to include element B within frame A. Next, the DOM tree is again updated to include a third node 203 representing a second element C, and the browser detects and may re-render at least a portion of the rich web UI to include the additional element C within frame A [identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM] (emphasis added).”); and
reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page (col. 6 lines 31-40, “[…] once the base DOM node 201 is generated, the base DOM node is made invisible (e.g., by assigning a display: none property to the base DOM node 201. Next, the DOM tree construction continues similar to the process of FIG. 2, adding one or more child nodes below the base DOM node. After detecting that the DOM tree beginning at the base DOM node is at a useful stage, the application then changes the style or property of the base DOM node to visible, such that the base DOM node 201 and the child nodes 202 and 203 are made visible to the browser [reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page].” and lines 54-57, “Since the browser begins rendering the DOM tree elements for display in layers, the reflow time is reduced, thus optimizing the time for displaying a rich web UI to the user [reduce load time of the page] (emphasis added).”).
Mocanu discloses “reordering of the DOM objects,” but Mocanu does not explicitly disclose:
generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page; and
sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
However, de Andrade discloses:
generating equivalent page code based at least in part on […] the DOM objects within the loaded page (paragraph [0058], “[…] the DOM may be defined in an XML format by converting the application output in EBIF format into an XML document object model using an XML schema as described herein. The HTML rendering module 901 may then generate HTML output as it traverses the application DOM. For example, for each user interface element encountered by the HTML rendering module 901 in the DOM, the rendering module 901 may generate or retrieve corresponding HTML code fragments [generating equivalent page code based at least in part on […] the DOM objects within the loaded page] (emphasis added).”); and
sending the equivalent page code to a remote system (paragraph [0035]1, “[…] remote user agent 301 may retrieve HTML or other client-compatible code (e.g., buttons, tables, widgets, JavaScript, etc.) from a resource server 307 to construct an interface corresponding to an EBIF application interface [sending the equivalent page code to a remote system] (emphasis added) .”; paragraph [0056], “FIG. 8 illustrates an example architecture through which graphics/user interface elements may be communicated between a remote user agent 801 and an HTML server 803. In the illustrated arrangement, the remote user agent 801 may provide an HTML rendering application 805 configured to create one or more HTML pages based on the current screens and/or visual elements of the EBIF application.”).
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that de Andrade discloses that a remote user agent may retrieve HTML or other client-compatible code from a resource server. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the resource server sends the HTML or other client-compatible code to the remote user agent.
As pointed out hereinabove, Mocanu and de Andrade are both analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 de Andrade into the teaching of Mocanu to include “generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page; and sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate or retrieve corresponding HTML code fragments for each user interface element encountered in the DOM (de Andrade, paragraph [0058]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Mocanu further discloses:
wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
identifying graphical elements referenced by the DOM objects, style objects, or active programming objects (col. 3 lines 8-16, “A webpage also referred to as a web document, consists of a base markup page, hereinafter referred to as the base page (e.g., an HTML page), and multiple supporting web resources or objects. Resources can be different types, such as scripts (e.g. JavaScript), data resources (e.g. XML or other text-based data), style sheets, images and other page components. There are many image formats such as GIF, PNG, and JPEG. The purpose of a web browser is to read HTML documents and compose them into visible or audible web pages.”).
Mocanu does not explicitly disclose:
responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network.
However, de Andrade discloses:
responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network (paragraph [0022], “FIG. 1 illustrates a content access and/or distribution system 100 that may be used in connection with one or more aspects described herein. Content may include data, video, audio, text, documents, images and the like and/or combinations thereof. The system 100 may include a content server 102, a network 104, receiving devices 106 and 109 and content consumption devices 108a-108n.”; paragraph [0056], “The HTML server 803 may then store the data in a cache 807 for retrieval by a client device.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, de Andrade is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 de Andrade into the teaching of Mocanu to include “responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store graphical elements of a webpage in a fast-retrieving storage space so that future requests for the graphical elements ca be served faster.
As per Claim 12, Mocanu discloses:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations (col. 2 lines 7-10, “The subject disclosure further relates to a machine-readable medium comprising instructions stored therein, which when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations […].”) comprising:
loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM) (col. 3 lines 37-41, “The browser may render a web document (e.g., rich web User Interface (UI)) for display to a user by incrementally referencing the DOM tree structure and rendering the DOM tree elements (e.g., upon detecting that the application has updated the DOM tree) [loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM)] (emphasis added).”);
determining the DOM is fully formed and a loaded page has been generated (col. 3 lines 41-52, “[…] as the DOM tree is updated in response to browser making requests (e.g., the initial load request or additional AJAX requests), reacting to user input (e.g., inputs by the user with respect to the web UI using one or more user input means) or other external inputs and triggers (e.g., where the web document is a monitoring interface with input signals being generated from one or more other devices or other signals generated by an external device, such as a system clock), the browser detects the updated DOM elements and re-renders all or part of the rich web UI according to the updated DOM tree until the entire DOM tree is rendered [determining the DOM is fully formed and a loaded page has been generated] (emphasis added).”);
parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM (col. 5 lines 65-67 to col. 6 lines 1-13, “As illustrated, the rich web UI is generated by first receiving a base page of the rich web UI (e.g., an HTML page) and parsing the page [parsing a representation of the loaded page]. In response to parsing the base page, the application renders a base node 201 within the DOM tree 200 representing a frame A of the rich web UI. During this stage, the browser references the DOM tree and begins the display rendering process by displaying the frame A. Next, the DOM tree is updated to include an additional node 202 representing an element B placed within the frame A. As the DOM tree is updated, the browser detects the updated DOM node and re-renders all or part of the document 205 to include element B within frame A. Next, the DOM tree is again updated to include a third node 203 representing a second element C, and the browser detects and may re-render at least a portion of the rich web UI to include the additional element C within frame A [identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM] (emphasis added).”); and
reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page (col. 6 lines 31-40, “[…] once the base DOM node 201 is generated, the base DOM node is made invisible (e.g., by assigning a display: none property to the base DOM node 201. Next, the DOM tree construction continues similar to the process of FIG. 2, adding one or more child nodes below the base DOM node. After detecting that the DOM tree beginning at the base DOM node is at a useful stage, the application then changes the style or property of the base DOM node to visible, such that the base DOM node 201 and the child nodes 202 and 203 are made visible to the browser [reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page].” and lines 54-57, “Since the browser begins rendering the DOM tree elements for display in layers, the reflow time is reduced, thus optimizing the time for displaying a rich web UI to the user [reduce load time of the page] (emphasis added).”).
Mocanu discloses “reordering of the DOM objects,” but Mocanu does not explicitly disclose:
generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page; and
sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
However, de Andrade discloses:
generating equivalent page code based at least in part on […] the DOM objects within the loaded page (paragraph [0058], “[…] the DOM may be defined in an XML format by converting the application output in EBIF format into an XML document object model using an XML schema as described herein. The HTML rendering module 901 may then generate HTML output as it traverses the application DOM. For example, for each user interface element encountered by the HTML rendering module 901 in the DOM, the rendering module 901 may generate or retrieve corresponding HTML code fragments [generating equivalent page code based at least in part on […] the DOM objects within the loaded page] (emphasis added).”); and
sending the equivalent page code to a remote system (paragraph [0035]1, “[…] remote user agent 301 may retrieve HTML or other client-compatible code (e.g., buttons, tables, widgets, JavaScript, etc.) from a resource server 307 to construct an interface corresponding to an EBIF application interface [sending the equivalent page code to a remote system] (emphasis added) .”; paragraph [0056], “FIG. 8 illustrates an example architecture through which graphics/user interface elements may be communicated between a remote user agent 801 and an HTML server 803. In the illustrated arrangement, the remote user agent 801 may provide an HTML rendering application 805 configured to create one or more HTML pages based on the current screens and/or visual elements of the EBIF application.”).
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that de Andrade discloses that a remote user agent may retrieve HTML or other client-compatible code from a resource server. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the resource server sends the HTML or other client-compatible code to the remote user agent.
As pointed out hereinabove, Mocanu and de Andrade are both analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 de Andrade into the teaching of Mocanu to include “generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page; and sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate or retrieve corresponding HTML code fragments for each user interface element encountered in the DOM (de Andrade, paragraph [0058]).
Claim 16 is a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocanu in view of de Andrade as applied to Claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2007/0226612 (hereinafter “Sun”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Sun is generally directed to server-side HTML customization based on style sheets and a target device (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Sun is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade discloses “generating the equivalent page code,” and Mocanu further discloses:
determining dependencies between active programming elements and DOM objects (Figure 2; col. 5 lines 65-67 to col. 6 lines 1-13, “As illustrated, the rich web UI is generated by first receiving a base page of the rich web UI (e.g., an HTML page) and parsing the page. In response to parsing the base page, the application renders a base node 201 within the DOM tree 200 representing a frame A of the rich web UI. During this stage, the browser references the DOM tree and begins the display rendering process by displaying the frame A. Next, the DOM tree is updated to include an additional node 202 representing an element B placed within the frame A. As the DOM tree is updated, the browser detects the updated DOM node and re-renders all or part of the document 205 to include element B within frame A. Next, the DOM tree is again updated to include a third node 203 representing a second element C, and the browser detects and may re-render at least a portion of the rich web UI to include the additional element C within frame A.”).
The combination of Mocanu and de Andrade does not explicitly disclose:
relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code.
However, Sun discloses:
relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code (paragraph [0051], “The document 56 may be encoded in the hypertext markup language (‘HTML’) and may include one or more HTML elements 57, as described more fully hereafter.”; paragraph [0074]1, “While the style sheet 68 and the document 56 are depicted herein as logically separate data files, the style sheet 68 may be included, in some instances, within a separate portion of document 56. For example, all of the rules 73 of the style sheet 68 may be located, as a group, at the beginning of the document 56 […].”).
1Examiner’s Remarks: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “active programming elements” includes cascading style sheets (CSS) elements, which is consistent with the specification. Thus, the limitation “active programming elements,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Sun’s style sheet rules. See MPEP § 2173.01(I).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sun is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Sun into the combined teachings of Mocanu and de Andrade to include “relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a style sheet at the beginning of an HTML document (Sun, paragraph [0074]).
Claim 13 is a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocanu in view of de Andrade as applied to Claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2014/0304588 (hereinafter “Li”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Li is generally directed to taking page snapshots by preventing delayed page loading (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade discloses “generating the equivalent page code,” and Mocanu further discloses:
identifying an active programming element within the loaded page (col. 3 lines 8-16, “A webpage also referred to as a web document, consists of a base markup page, hereinafter referred to as the base page (e.g., an HTML page), and multiple supporting web resources or objects. Resources can be different types, such as scripts (e.g. JavaScript), data resources (e.g. XML or other text-based data), style sheets, images and other page components. There are many image formats such as GIF, PNG, and JPEG. The purpose of a web browser is to read HTML documents and compose them into visible or audible web pages.”).
The combination of Mocanu and de Andrade does not explicitly disclose:
modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature.
However, Li discloses:
modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature (paragraph [0049], “[…] the page resource is an image. If delayed loading technology is used to load a page, the original HTML file of the page is updated accordingly (prior to implementing process 400).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Li into the combined teachings of Mocanu and de Andrade to include “modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to only execute data loading operations on certain data when the data is actually needed to be loaded for a user at a webpage (Li, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 14 is a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocanu in view of de Andrade as applied to Claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2014/0156613 (hereinafter “Meadows”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Meadows is generally directed to supplementing or replacing conventional electronic data compression technologies to achieve improved efficiencies in such electronic data storage and transmission (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Meadows is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade discloses “generating the equivalent page code,” and Mocanu further discloses:
identifying style objects or active programming objects (col. 3 lines 8-16, “A webpage also referred to as a web document, consists of a base markup page, hereinafter referred to as the base page (e.g., an HTML page), and multiple supporting web resources or objects. Resources can be different types, such as scripts (e.g. JavaScript), data resources (e.g. XML or other text-based data), style sheets, images and other page components. There are many image formats such as GIF, PNG, and JPEG. The purpose of a web browser is to read HTML documents and compose them into visible or audible web pages.”).
The combination of Mocanu and de Andrade does not explicitly disclose:
determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation; and
executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects.
However, Meadows discloses:
determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation (paragraph [0063], “This is to say that notwithstanding any act of consolidation, the preexisting functionality of any individual association may be preserved. For example, wherein consolidating may involve creating consolidated associations for CSS, script, or image information, the consolidated association still may be usable and may permit any individual css, script, or image information to be accessed and utilized from within the consolidated CSS, script, or image information.”); and
executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects (paragraph [0065], “[…] embodiments may involve an electronic data transmitter (108) responsive to an electronic data consolidator (107) and to which an input/output pathway (105) may be responsive.”; paragraph [0066], “[…] selectively transmitting may involve transmitting a single CSS object, script object, or image object using a single pointer, even wherein multiple CSS objects, script objects, or image objects may have been consolidated with multiple pointers into a single consolidated electronic data association.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Meadows is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Meadows into the combined teachings of Mocanu and de Andrade to include “determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation; and executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the number of access events of multiple electronic data associations and to reduce the time to access electronic data objects (Meadows, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 15 is a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocanu in view of de Andrade as applied to Claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2008/0301540 (hereinafter “Sava”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Sava is generally directed to processing a document to display the document differently depending on a context of the document (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Sava is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade discloses “generating the equivalent page code,” but the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files; and
consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file.
However, Sava discloses:
identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files (paragraph [0026], “Referring to FIG. 1A, an input document is authored or provided 101, and using a combination of CSS and JavaScript along with HTML authoring of documents, content is produced for the document, e.g., a single page, to be used in multiple contexts. A main style (e.g., a CSS) is used to render the main view of an HTML document with all the elements visible 102, including mastheads, navigation, footers, etc. In addition, the HTML document has a JavaScript function, or set of functions, embedded in it 103 that generates the popup window if called, explicitly assigning a window name and altering the main styles 104 to produce a web page with the same content but a different visual experience based on the current window name 105.”); and
consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file (paragraph [0026], “Referring to FIG. 1A, an input document is authored or provided 101, and using a combination of CSS and JavaScript along with HTML authoring of documents, content is produced for the document, e.g., a single page, to be used in multiple contexts. A main style (e.g., a CSS) is used to render the main view of an HTML document with all the elements visible 102, including mastheads, navigation, footers, etc. In addition, the HTML document has a JavaScript function, or set of functions, embedded in it 103 that generates the popup window if called, explicitly assigning a window name and altering the main styles 104 to produce a web page with the same content but a different visual experience based on the current window name 105.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sava is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Sava into the combined teachings of Mocanu and de Andrade to include “identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files; and consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a combination of CSS and JavaScript along with HTML authoring of documents to produce a single page to be used in multiple contexts (Sava, paragraph [0026]).
Claim 17 is a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,413,046 (hereinafter “Mocanu”) in view of US 2013/0254675 (hereinafter “de Andrade”) and US 2007/0226612 (hereinafter “Sun”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Mocanu is generally directed to optimizing the displaying of a rich web user interface (UI) to a user (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, de Andrade is generally directed to receiving application data in a client-incompatible format and converting at least a portion of the application data into an alternate client-compatible format (Abstract). And Sun is generally directed to server-side HTML customization based on style sheets and a target device (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 21, Mocanu discloses:
A method (col. 4 lines 4-6, “The disclosed subject matter provides a […] method for reducing website load time of a rich web UI of a web application (e.g., page flip times and/or the initial load time).”) comprising:
loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM) (col. 3 lines 37-41, “The browser may render a web document (e.g., rich web User Interface (UI)) for display to a user by incrementally referencing the DOM tree structure and rendering the DOM tree elements (e.g., upon detecting that the application has updated the DOM tree) [loading of a source page code including a document object model (DOM)] (emphasis added).”);
parsing a representation of the loaded page to identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM (col. 5 lines 65-67 to col. 6 lines 1-13, “As illustrated, the rich web UI is generated by first receiving a base page of the rich web UI (e.g., an HTML page) and parsing the page [parsing a representation of the loaded page]. In response to parsing the base page, the application renders a base node 201 within the DOM tree 200 representing a frame A of the rich web UI. During this stage, the browser references the DOM tree and begins the display rendering process by displaying the frame A. Next, the DOM tree is updated to include an additional node 202 representing an element B placed within the frame A. As the DOM tree is updated, the browser detects the updated DOM node and re-renders all or part of the document 205 to include element B within frame A. Next, the DOM tree is again updated to include a third node 203 representing a second element C, and the browser detects and may re-render at least a portion of the rich web UI to include the additional element C within frame A [identify dependencies among DOM objects of the DOM] (emphasis added).”);
reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page to reduce load time of the page (col. 6 lines 31-40, “[…] once the base DOM node 201 is generated, the base DOM node is made invisible (e.g., by assigning a display: none property to the base DOM node 201. Next, the DOM tree construction continues similar to the process of FIG. 2, adding one or more child nodes below the base DOM node. After detecting that the DOM tree beginning at the base DOM node is at a useful stage, the application then changes the style or property of the base DOM node to visible, such that the base DOM node 201 and the child nodes 202 and 203 are made visible to the browser [reordering the DOM objects within the loaded page].” and lines 54-57, “Since the browser begins rendering the DOM tree elements for display in layers, the reflow time is reduced, thus optimizing the time for displaying a rich web UI to the user [reduce load time of the page] (emphasis added).”);
identifying an active programming element within the loaded page (col. 3 lines 8-16, “A webpage also referred to as a web document, consists of a base markup page, hereinafter referred to as the base page (e.g., an HTML page), and multiple supporting web resources or objects. Resources can be different types, such as scripts (e.g. JavaScript), data resources (e.g. XML or other text-based data), style sheets, images and other page components. There are many image formats such as GIF, PNG, and JPEG. The purpose of a web browser is to read HTML documents and compose them into visible or audible web pages.”); and
determining dependencies between active programming elements and DOM objects (Figure 2; col. 5 lines 65-67 to col. 6 lines 1-13, “As illustrated, the rich web UI is generated by first receiving a base page of the rich web UI (e.g., an HTML page) and parsing the page. In response to parsing the base page, the application renders a base node 201 within the DOM tree 200 representing a frame A of the rich web UI. During this stage, the browser references the DOM tree and begins the display rendering process by displaying the frame A. Next, the DOM tree is updated to include an additional node 202 representing an element B placed within the frame A. As the DOM tree is updated, the browser detects the updated DOM node and re-renders all or part of the document 205 to include element B within frame A. Next, the DOM tree is again updated to include a third node 203 representing a second element C, and the browser detects and may re-render at least a portion of the rich web UI to include the additional element C within frame A [determining dependencies between active programming elements and DOM objects] (emphasis added).”).
Mocanu discloses “reordering of the DOM objects,” but Mocanu does not explicitly disclose:
generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page including; and
sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.
However, de Andrade discloses:
generating equivalent page code based at least in part on […] the DOM objects within the loaded page including (paragraph [0058], “[…] the DOM may be defined in an XML format by converting the application output in EBIF format into an XML document object model using an XML schema as described herein. The HTML rendering module 901 may then generate HTML output as it traverses the application DOM. For example, for each user interface element encountered by the HTML rendering module 901 in the DOM, the rendering module 901 may generate or retrieve corresponding HTML code fragments [generating equivalent page code based at least in part on […] the DOM objects within the loaded page] (emphasis added).”); and
sending the equivalent page code to a remote system (paragraph [0035]1, “[…] remote user agent 301 may retrieve HTML or other client-compatible code (e.g., buttons, tables, widgets, JavaScript, etc.) from a resource server 307 to construct an interface corresponding to an EBIF application interface [sending the equivalent page code to a remote system] (emphasis added) .”; paragraph [0056], “FIG. 8 illustrates an example architecture through which graphics/user interface elements may be communicated between a remote user agent 801 and an HTML server 803. In the illustrated arrangement, the remote user agent 801 may provide an HTML rendering application 805 configured to create one or more HTML pages based on the current screens and/or visual elements of the EBIF application.”).
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that de Andrade discloses that a remote user agent may retrieve HTML or other client-compatible code from a resource server. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the resource server sends the HTML or other client-compatible code to the remote user agent.
As pointed out hereinabove, Mocanu and de Andrade are both analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 de Andrade into the teaching of Mocanu to include “generating equivalent page code based at least in part on the reordering of the DOM objects within the loaded page including; and sending the equivalent page code to a remote system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate or retrieve corresponding HTML code fragments for each user interface element encountered in the DOM (de Andrade, paragraph [0058]).
The combination of Mocanu and de Andrade does not explicitly disclose:
relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code.
However, Sun discloses:
relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code (paragraph [0051], “The document 56 may be encoded in the hypertext markup language (‘HTML’) and may include one or more HTML elements 57, as described more fully hereafter.”; paragraph [0074]2, “While the style sheet 68 and the document 56 are depicted herein as logically separate data files, the style sheet 68 may be included, in some instances, within a separate portion of document 56. For example, all of the rules 73 of the style sheet 68 may be located, as a group, at the beginning of the document 56 […] [relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code] (emphasis added).”).
2Examiner’s Remarks: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “active programming elements” includes cascading style sheets (CSS) elements, which is consistent with the specification. Thus, the limitation “active programming elements,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Sun’s style sheet rules. See MPEP § 2173.01(I).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sun is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Sun into the combined teachings of Mocanu and de Andrade to include “relocating active programming elements proximate to a beginning of the equivalent page code.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a style sheet at the beginning of an HTML document (Sun, paragraph [0074]).
Claim 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocanu in view of de Andrade and Sun as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of US 2014/0304588 (hereinafter “Li”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Li is generally directed to taking page snapshots by preventing delayed page loading (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 22, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated; and the combination of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun discloses “generating the equivalent page code,” but the combination of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature.
However, Li discloses:
[…] modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature (paragraph [0049], “[…] the page resource is an image. If delayed loading technology is used to load a page, the original HTML file of the page is updated accordingly (prior to implementing process 400).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Li into the combined teachings of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun to include “wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises modifying the active programming element to include a delayed-loading feature.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to only execute data loading operations on certain data when the data is actually needed to be loaded for a user at a webpage (Li, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocanu in view of de Andrade and Sun as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of US 2014/0156613 (hereinafter “Meadows”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Meadows is generally directed to supplementing or replacing conventional electronic data compression technologies to achieve improved efficiencies in such electronic data storage and transmission (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Meadows is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 23, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated; and the combination of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun discloses “generating the equivalent page code,” and Mocanu further discloses:
identifying graphical elements referenced by the DOM objects, style objects, or active programming objects (col. 3 lines 8-16, “A webpage also referred to as a web document, consists of a base markup page, hereinafter referred to as the base page (e.g., an HTML page), and multiple supporting web resources or objects. Resources can be different types, such as scripts (e.g. JavaScript), data resources (e.g. XML or other text-based data), style sheets, images and other page components. There are many image formats such as GIF, PNG, and JPEG. The purpose of a web browser is to read HTML documents and compose them into visible or audible web pages.”); and
identifying style objects or active programming objects (col. 3 lines 8-16, “A webpage also referred to as a web document, consists of a base markup page, hereinafter referred to as the base page (e.g., an HTML page), and multiple supporting web resources or objects. Resources can be different types, such as scripts (e.g. JavaScript), data resources (e.g. XML or other text-based data), style sheets, images and other page components. There are many image formats such as GIF, PNG, and JPEG. The purpose of a web browser is to read HTML documents and compose them into visible or audible web pages.”).
The combination of Mocanu and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network.
However, de Andrade discloses:
responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network (paragraph [0022], “FIG. 1 illustrates a content access and/or distribution system 100 that may be used in connection with one or more aspects described herein. Content may include data, video, audio, text, documents, images and the like and/or combinations thereof. The system 100 may include a content server 102, a network 104, receiving devices 106 and 109 and content consumption devices 108a-108n.”; paragraph [0056], “The HTML server 803 may then store the data in a cache 807 for retrieval by a client device.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, de Andrade is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 de Andrade into the combined teachings of Mocanu and Sun to include “responsive to, identifying the graphical elements, caching the graphical elements in a content delivery network.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store graphical elements of a webpage in a fast-retrieving storage space so that future requests for the graphical elements ca be served faster.
The combination of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation; and
executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects.
However, Meadows discloses:
determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation (paragraph [0063], “This is to say that notwithstanding any act of consolidation, the preexisting functionality of any individual association may be preserved. For example, wherein consolidating may involve creating consolidated associations for CSS, script, or image information, the consolidated association still may be usable and may permit any individual css, script, or image information to be accessed and utilized from within the consolidated CSS, script, or image information.”); and
executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects (paragraph [0065], “[…] embodiments may involve an electronic data transmitter (108) responsive to an electronic data consolidator (107) and to which an input/output pathway (105) may be responsive.”; paragraph [0066], “[…] selectively transmitting may involve transmitting a single CSS object, script object, or image object using a single pointer, even wherein multiple CSS objects, script objects, or image objects may have been consolidated with multiple pointers into a single consolidated electronic data association.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Meadows is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Meadows into the combined teachings of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun to include “determining that the style objects or the active programming objects function is not impaired by a consolidation operation; and executing the consolidation operation, in response to determining the function is not impaired, the consolidation operation to consolidate the CSS objects or the active programming objects into one or more combined objects.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the number of access events of multiple electronic data associations and to reduce the time to access electronic data objects (Meadows, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocanu in view of de Andrade and Sun as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of US 2008/0301540 (hereinafter “Sava”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to optimizing websites via an automated process that improves load time of the websites (specification, paragraph [0012]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Sava is generally directed to processing a document to display the document differently depending on a context of the document (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Sava is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 24, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated; and the combination of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun discloses “generating the equivalent page code,” but the combination of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises:
identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files; and
consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file.
However, Sava discloses:
identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files (paragraph [0026], “Referring to FIG. 1A, an input document is authored or provided 101, and using a combination of CSS and JavaScript along with HTML authoring of documents, content is produced for the document, e.g., a single page, to be used in multiple contexts. A main style (e.g., a CSS) is used to render the main view of an HTML document with all the elements visible 102, including mastheads, navigation, footers, etc. In addition, the HTML document has a JavaScript function, or set of functions, embedded in it 103 that generates the popup window if called, explicitly assigning a window name and altering the main styles 104 to produce a web page with the same content but a different visual experience based on the current window name 105.”); and
consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file (paragraph [0026], “Referring to FIG. 1A, an input document is authored or provided 101, and using a combination of CSS and JavaScript along with HTML authoring of documents, content is produced for the document, e.g., a single page, to be used in multiple contexts. A main style (e.g., a CSS) is used to render the main view of an HTML document with all the elements visible 102, including mastheads, navigation, footers, etc. In addition, the HTML document has a JavaScript function, or set of functions, embedded in it 103 that generates the popup window if called, explicitly assigning a window name and altering the main styles 104 to produce a web page with the same content but a different visual experience based on the current window name 105.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sava is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Sava into the combined teachings of Mocanu, de Andrade, and Sun to include “identifying loaded hypertext markup language (HTML) files, style sheet files and active programming language files; and consolidating the HTML files, style sheet files, and the active programming language files to load as a single file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a combination of CSS and JavaScript along with HTML authoring of documents to produce a single page to be used in multiple contexts (Sava, paragraph [0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but would be allowable over the cited prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome any corresponding objections and/or rejections set forth hereinabove.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per Claim 7, the closest cited prior art, the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade, fails to teach or suggest, among the other claimed limitations, “wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises: inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models; receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters; applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a plurality of browser, device, and bandwidth configurations associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.” These claimed limitations, in combination with the other claimed limitations, are neither taught nor suggested by the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade.
As per Claim 18, the closest cited prior art, the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade, fails to teach or suggest, among the other claimed limitations, “wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises: inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models; receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters; applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a browser configuration associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.” These claimed limitations, in combination with the other claimed limitations, are neither taught nor suggested by the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade.
As per Claim 19, the closest cited prior art, the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade, fails to teach or suggest, among the other claimed limitations, “wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises: inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models; receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters; applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a device configuration associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.” These claimed limitations, in combination with the other claimed limitations, are neither taught nor suggested by the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade.
As per Claim 20, the closest cited prior art, the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade, fails to teach or suggest, among the other claimed limitations, “wherein generating the equivalent page code further comprises: inputting the loaded page into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learning models; receiving, as an output of the one or more machine learned models, one or more consolidation and compression parameters; applying the one or more consolidation and compression parameters to a bandwidth configuration associated with the loaded page to generate one or more results; and selecting at least one of the one or more the file consolidation and compression parameters to apply to one or more files based at least in part on the comparison of the one or more results.” These claimed limitations, in combination with the other claimed limitations, are neither taught nor suggested by the combination of Mocanu and de Andrade.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2014/0372843 (hereinafter “Cameron”) discloses fast bulk z-ordering for graphic elements.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 8,977,653 (hereinafter “Mahkovec”) discloses modifying web pages to decrease latency associated with retrieving the web pages.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 11,194,885 (hereinafter “Parhami”) discloses incremental document object model (DOM) updating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights