DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 25 August 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-21 have been amended.
Claims 2, 11, 17 have been cancelled.
All 101, 112, and art rejections as presented within the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-21 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 10 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the title filed on 8/25/26 has been entered and accepted.
The amendment to the abstract filed on 8/25/26 has been entered. However, the abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b)
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation(s) of Claim 10 no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 18-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y0n9 (“Apply postMessage”, 11/14/2019, 10 pages) in further view of Shen (CN111797344A, 10/20/2020) (Cited on IDS filed on 7/19/2024) in further view of Havini (US20100332989) (Examiner's Note: An English machine translation of CN111797344A generated by the EPO was previously provided)
As per independent claim 1, Y0n9 discloses a method comprising:
in response to a triggering operation for a content box within a first page, determining first display parameters of the content box within the first page, a position parameter of the first page within a second page, and a second display parameter of the second page, the first page being embedded into the second page through an iframe label for presenting; (pg 1-5: for the non-full-screen and non-centered display of the pop-up box of the small project introduced by an iframe, when (display) parameters are transmitted to the iframe, a width parameter on the left side of a parent level and a height parameter at the top of the parent level are transmitted to the iframe, inside the iframe, the position of the popup box is adjusted according to the transmitted size; pg 1, 5 discloses triggering the operation of the pop-up box (content box))
determining a position offset of the content box relative to the second page based on the first display parameters, the second display parameter, and the position parameter, the position offset being for controlling the content box to be presented within the second page in a centered manner; and (p4-6: when passing parameters to the iframe, the width of the left side of the parent element and the height of the top element are also passed to the iframe, and the iframe then adjusts the position of the center frame according to the passed-in dimensions.)
presenting, based on the position offset, the content box within the second page in a centered manner. (p7: see figure)
presenting, on an upper layer of the second page, a background mask while the content box is presented within the second page in the centered manner, wherein the background mask covers a page display area corresponding to the second page (Pg7-9: discloses a content pop up in the center of the page with a background layer that covers the entire page around the content box )
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determining first display parameters wherein the parameters include a first width offset of the content box relative to the first page, a first height offset of the content box relative to the first page, a width of the content box, and a height of the content box. However, Shen discloses to enable a centered vertical display of the pop-up page on the current page, the server side calculates the position of the target pop-up page within the current page by invoking a scroll listener event, obtains the positioning display result, refreshes the target pop-up page on the current page displayed by the browser based on the positioning display result. (0074-0080) Furthermore, Shen discloses determining a target page distance based on the current page and the target pop-up page. (0082-0083) Shen discloses the target page distance is determined by specific calculation logic as the distance between the target pop-up page, the target pop-up box, and the current page. The target page distance is calculated based on or in reference to the target pop-up page, the target pop-up box, and the top of the current page. (0083) Furthermore, Shen discloses based on the distance to the target page, determine whether the target pop-up page meets the standard display requirements and obtain the location display result. (0084) The standard display requirement refers to the requirement for the target pop up page to be displayed on the current page in a custom setting. As an example, based on the first top distance A, the second top distance B, and the third top distance C, (see 0083 discloses these as width and heights) a top distance (D-E)/2 of the target pop-up page relative to the current page when the target pop-up page is vertically centered and fully displayed relative to the current page is calculated. At this point, if (B-A + C) = (D-E)/2 is true, then the target pop-up page may be vertically centered and fully displayed with respect to the current page. The calculation result is C = (D-E)/2-B + A, at which point C is the distance from the top of the target pop-up frame that the target pop-up page is vertically centered and fully displayed in the current page. (0085) Thus, 0086 discloses the server determines whether the target pop-up page meets the standard display requirements based on the distance to the target page. If the target pop-up page meets the standard display requirements, the target pop up page is vertically centered and fully displayed on the current page at a distance relative to the top of the target pop-up box. Therefore, Shen discloses the target page distance is calculated in reference to the target pop-up page, the target pop-up box, and the top or current page; thereby obtaining a corresponding top distance enabling vertical centering fully displayed in the current page; specific calculations to obtain width and height based on this calculation to satisfy the centered display will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Thus, the functionality of Shen, as disclosed, involves determining first display parameters wherein the parameters include a first width offset of the content box relative to the first page, a first height offset of the content box relative to the first page, a width of the content box, and a height of the content box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of vertical centering the pop-up box of Shen since it would have provided the benefit of improving the improving the practicality and reliability of positioning adjustment of the pop-up box (0079) and enhancing the user experience (0054)
However, the cited art fails to disclose wherein the background mask prevents user interaction with user interface objects other than the content box. However, Havini discloses a modal dialog box being displayed that comprises the combination of a content box (dialog box) and a background layer (semi-transparent panel). When the modal dialog box is displayed, any interaction outside of the displayed content/dialog box (such as the background layer/ semi-transparent panel), the detected interaction is ignored.(0026, 0031) Thus, the only way to remove the dialog box is to hit either of the displayed buttons in the dialog box. Thus, Havini discloses wherein the background mask prevents user interaction with user interface objects other than the content box. Furthermore, Havini discloses that the background layer is semi-transparent/darken that covers the GUI/page underneath it (0015,0024) . In addition, the dialog box is positioned centered on the screen. (FIG 2B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of the modal dialog box of Havini since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of preventing users from accidentally closing the popup by clicking outside of its boundaries.
As per dependent claim 3, Y0n9 discloses wherein the content box comprises: a modal box for receiving a user interactive operation or a message box for notifying a user with a message in the page (Pg 7-8: discloses interactive features)
As per dependent claim 4, Y0n9 discloses wherein the position parameter of the first page within the second page is recorded in page source code of the second page (p2-3; 5-6: discloses the source code of the second page comprising the position parameter). Furthermore, Y0n9 discloses wherein determining the position parameter of the first page within the second page comprises: sending a notification event to the second page, the notification event being for triggering the second page to return the position parameter of the first page within the second page recorded in the page source code; and receiving the position parameter of the first page within the second page returned by the second page (p5 states when passing parameters to the iframe, the width of the left side of the parent element and the height of the top element are also passed to the iframe, and the iframe then adjusts the position of the center frame according to the passed-in dimensions; p2-3 and 5-6 comprising notification events, that includes the postMessage function wherein a one of a skilled artisan would have realized postMessage is a communication between a parent page and the iframe. Thus, p2-3 and 5-6 discloses the passing and receiving the position parameter)
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Y0n9 discloses the position parameter of the first page within the second page (pg 1-5) However, the cited art fails the position parameter of the first page within the second page comprises: a second width offset of the first page relative to the second page, and a second height offset of the first page relative to the second page; and wherein the second display parameter of the second page comprises a width of the second page and a height of the second page. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Shen discloses to enable a centered vertical display of the pop-up page on the current page, the server side calculates the position of the target pop-up page within the current page by invoking a scroll listener event, obtains the positioning display result, refreshes the target pop-up page on the current page displayed by the browser based on the positioning display result. (0074-0080) Furthermore, Shen discloses determining a target page distance based on the current page and the target pop-up page. (0082-0083) Shen discloses the target page distance is determined by specific calculation logic as the distance between the target pop-up page, the target pop-up box, and the current page. The target page distance is calculated based on or in reference to the target pop-up page, the target pop-up box, and the top of the current page. (0083) Furthermore, Shen discloses based on the distance to the target page, determine whether the target pop-up page meets the standard display requirements and obtain the location display result. (0084) The standard display requirement refers to the requirement for the target pop up page to be displayed on the current page in a custom setting. As an example, based on the first top distance A, the second top distance B, and the third top distance C, (see 0083 discloses these as width and heights) a top distance (D-E)/2 of the target pop-up page relative to the current page when the target pop-up page is vertically centered and fully displayed relative to the current page is calculated. At this point, if (B-A + C) = (D-E)/2 is true, then the target pop-up page may be vertically centered and fully displayed with respect to the current page. The calculation result is C = (D-E)/2-B + A, at which point C is the distance from the top of the target pop-up frame that the target pop-up page is vertically centered and fully displayed in the current page. (0085) Thus, 0086 discloses the server determines whether the target pop-up page meets the standard display requirements based on the distance to the target page. If the target pop-up page meets the standard display requirements, the target pop up page is vertically centered and fully displayed on the current page at a distance relative to the top of the target pop-up box. Therefore, Shen discloses the target page distance is calculated in reference to the target pop-up page, the target pop-up box, and the top or current page; thereby obtaining a corresponding top distance enabling vertical centering fully displayed in the current page; specific calculations to obtain width and height based on this calculation to satisfy the centered display will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Thus, the functionality of Shen, as disclosed, involves the position parameter of the first page within the second page comprises: a second width offset of the first page relative to the second page, and a second height offset of the first page relative to the second page; and wherein the second display parameter of the second page comprises a width of the second page and a height of the second page.
As per independent claim 9, Claim 9 reflects the computer readable medium comprising the instructions used for performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected along similar rationale. Furthermore, Claim 9 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected along similar rationale (See rejection of claim 1. The rejection and rationale is incorporated into this portion of the rejection) Furthermore, in regards to the additional limitations/subject matter not previously presented in claim 1, Y0n9 does not explicitly recited a computer readable medium is used for performing the method of claim 1. However, one of skilled artisan would have realized that since JavaScript and HTML are in fact, a computer programming language, the language(s) (including its instructions) needs to be installed/stored in a data storage device/medium first before being able to use the programming language with the use of a processor. Then the processor processes the programming language' instructions, from the data storage device/medium, into a temporary memory to perform the programming language' functionality received. Finally, in order be able to use either programming language, one of a skilled artisan would have realized a display screen is needed to view the data, or even fully use the programming language.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modified Y0n9, for executing programing languages for displaying a pop-up (modal) window, be used with a computer readable medium known in the art since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of it bridges the gap between human logic and machine execution, allowing code to be efficiently stored, translated, and executed by digital systems.
As per independent claim 10, Claim 10 reflects the electronic drive having a storage device and processor comprising the instructions used for performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected along similar rationale. In other words, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected along similar rationale (See rejection of claim 1. The rejection and rationale are incorporated into this portion of the rejection) Furthermore, in regards to the additional limitations/subject matter not previously presented in claims 1, Y0n9 does not explicitly recited electronic drive having a storage device and processor is used for performing the method of claim 1. However, one of skilled artisan would have realized that since JavaScript and HTML are in fact, a computer programming language, which the language(s) (including its instructions) needs to be installed/stored in a data storage device/medium first before being able to use the programming language with the use of a processor. Then the processor processes the programming language' instructions, from the data storage device/medium, into a temporary memory to perform the programming language' functionality received. Finally, in order be able to use either programming language, one of a skilled artisan would have realized a display screen is needed to view the data, or even fully use the programming language.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modified Y0n9, for executing programing languages for displaying a pop-up (modal) window, be used with an electronic drive having a storage device and processing device known in the art since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of it bridges the gap between human logic and machine execution, allowing code to be efficiently stored, translated, and executed by digital systems.
As dependent claims 12-13 and 15, Claims 12-13 and 15 recites the corresponding device form of the method form of claims 3-4 and 6 wherein the device of Claims 12-13, 15 contains similar subject matter/limitations of the method of claims 3-4, 6. Therefore, the corresponding device of Claims 12-13, 15 are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 3-4, 6.
As per dependent claims 18-19 and 21, Claims 18-19 and 21 recites the corresponding medium form of the method form of claims 3-4 and 6 wherein the medium of Claims 18-19 and 21 contains similar subject matter/limitations of the method of claims 3-4 and 6. Therefore, the corresponding medium of Claims 18-19 and 21 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 3-4 and 6.
Claim(s) 5, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y0n9 in further view of Shen in further view of Havini in further view of Livan (“Creating an Exit Modal Box using the jQuery library”, 3/26/2015, 4 pages) in further view of jQueryScript (“jQuery Plugin To Create Multiple Bootstrap Modals”, online as of 3/10/2016, 2 pages)
As per dependent claim 5, Claim 5 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Y0n9 discloses each/a content box has predetermined display parameters for controlling a corresponding content box to be presented in a centered manner; and determining the predetermined display parameters of the content box as the first display parameters. (pg 5-6) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose: invoking the content box in a content box component library based on content box identification information comprised in the triggering operation, and each content box has predetermined display parameters for controlling a corresponding content box to be presented. However, Livan discloses invoking a modal box in a library using a jquery function commands that triggers the modal box based on the user’s action. Furthermore, Livan discloses code/parameters on the presentation of the modal box. (pg 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of modal box in a modal library of Livan since it would have provided the intrinsic advantages of streamlines development by providing pre-built, cross-browser compatible, and feature-rich components that would otherwise require significant manual coding
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein a plurality of content boxes are predetermined in the content box component library. However, JQueryScript discloses display multiple Bootstrap modal windows on the webpage while supports modals of different sizes, since it is deeply integrated with the core of Bootstrap. (pg 1) Pages 1-2 disclose using a library to create the multiple modal windows on the webpage. Each modal window has its own ID and there are different classes of modal. (pg 1-2. Section 2.)Thus, JQueryScript discloses a plurality of content boxes are predetermined in the content box component library.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of plurality of modal box/windows in a modal library of JQueryScript since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enable multiple open, stacked, or layered modal windows in Bootstrap and allows for nested modals, supports different sizes, and manages the backdrop automatically.
Thus, in conjunction in with Y0n9 and Livan, the combination of the cited art teaches the subject matter of determining the first display parameters of the content box within the first page comprises: invoking the content box in a content box component library based on content box identification information comprised in the triggering operation, wherein a plurality of content boxes are predetermined in the content box component library, and each of the plurality of content boxes has predetermined display parameters for controlling a corresponding content box to be presented in a centered manner; and determining the predetermined display parameters of the content box as the first display parameters.
As per dependent claims 14 and 20, Claims 14 and 20 recites similar limitations in Claim 5 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 17, in regards to the objection to the Abstract/specification, in summary, Applicant states the abstract has been amended to be in narrative form and request withdrawal of the objection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, the Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims slightly reworded. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12-15, 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisor signing this action, William Bashore can be reached at 5712724088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights