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 the application filed on 16 July 2024, the preliminary amendment filed on 17 July 2024, the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 19 July 2024.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-10 were originally filed on 7/16/24.
Claims 8 were cancelled on 7/17/24 by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 11-21 were added on 7/17/24 by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-7, 9-21 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 10 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority, CN202210068507.5 filed 1/20/2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/19/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 current title 1) is broad and 2) doesn’t include subject matter being claimed within Applicant’s invention. The title does not involve the subject matter of positioning a content box to be presented.
The abstract of the disclosure is 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.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/16/24 have been accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing device for executing in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a user interactive operation on a page … in the page”. However, claim 1 already introduced a “first page” and “second page”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a page/the page” of claim 3 should depend on the “first page” of claim 1, “second page” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view claim 3 as “a modal box for receiving a user interactive operation on the first page or the second page or a message box for notifying a user with a message in the first page or the second page”
Claims 12 and 18 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein in response to a triggering operation for a content box within the first page” in lines 3 and 5. However, claim 1 already introduced the element(s) “a triggering operation” and “a content box” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a triggering operation” and “a content box” of lines 3 and 4 of claim 4 should depend on the “a triggering operation” and “a content box” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore, claim 4 also recites the limitation “determining a position parameter of the first page within the second page” in line 4. However, claim 1 already introduced the element(s) “a position parameter” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a position parameter” of claim 4 should depend on the “a position parameter” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view claim 4 as “The method of claim 1, wherein the position parameter of the first page within the second page being recorded in page source code of the second page, and wherein in response to the triggering operation for the content box within the first page, determining the position parameter of the first page within the second page comprises: in response to the triggering operation for the content box within the first page…”
Claims 13 and 19 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “determining a first display parameter of the content box within the first page” in the preamble. However, claim 1 already introduced the element(s) “a first display parameter” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a first display parameter” of claim 5 should depend on the “a first display parameter” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore, claim 5 recites the limitation “each content box in the content box component library” in lines 5-6. However, claim 5 already introduced “a target content box…in the library” and “ “plurality of content boxes…library” in the previous limitations. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “each content box” is referring to the element “a target content box…in the library” in the previous limitation, the element “plurality of content boxes…library” in the previous limitation, or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore, claim 5 recites the limitation “within a page where the content box is triggered”. However, claim 1 already introduced a “first page” and “second page”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a page” of claim 5 should depend on the “first page” of claim 1, “second page” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore, claim 5 recites the limitation “the content box is triggered” in lines 7-8. However, Claim 5 recites the element(s) “target content box”, “each content box”, and “corresponding content box” in the previous limitations of claim 5. In addition, claim 1 already introduced “a content box within the first page” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “the content box is triggered” of claim 5 in lines 7-8 should depend on the element(s) “target content box” in the previous limitation of claim 5, “each content box”, in the previous limitation of claim 5 , “corresponding content box” in the previous limitation of claim 5, “a content box within the first page” of claim 1, or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
For examining purposes, the Examiner will view claim 5 as “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first display parameter of the content box within the first page comprises: invoking a target 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 in the content box component library has a predetermined display parameter for controlling a corresponding content box to be presented in a centered manner within the first page where the content box of the first page is triggered; and determining the predetermined display parameter of the target content box as the first display parameter.
Claims 14 and 20 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “determining a first display parameter of the content box within the first page” in the preamble. However, claim 1 already introduced the element(s) “a first display parameter” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a first display parameter” of claim 6 should depend on the “a first display parameter” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore, claim 6 also recites the limitation “a position parameter of the first page within a second page”. However, claim 1 already introduced the element(s) “a position parameter” “and second page” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a position parameter” and “second page” of claim 6 should depend on the “a position parameter” ” and “second page” of claim 1 or each viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore Claim 6 recites the limitation “a second display parameter of the second page” in the preamble. However, claim 1 already introduced the element(s) “a second display parameter” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “a first display parameter” of claim 6 should depend on the “a second display parameter” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view claim 6 as “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first display parameter of the content box within the first page, a position parameter of the first page on the second page and the second display parameter of the second page comprises:..”
Claims 15 and 21 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “determining a position offset of the content box relative to the second page” in the preamble. However, claim 1 already introduced the element(s) “position offset of the content box” in the first limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “position offset” of claim 7 should depend on the “position offset” of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view claim 7 as “The method of claim 7, wherein determining the position offset of the content box relative to the second page…”
Claim 16 recites similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the acts" in line 3 of the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processing device, implements acts comprising:”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the acts" in “a processing device” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “a processing device for executing the computer program in the storage device to implement acts comprising:”
As per independent claim 10, the claim limitation containing “…processing device for executing…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of each limitation containing “…processing device configured to”. Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed device(s)/means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “determining a first display parameter 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” ” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “determining” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identity the location values for an object to be placed on a paper document.
Similarly, the limitation “determining a position offset of the content box relative to the second page based on the first display parameter, 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” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identity how far from the edge for an object to be placed on a paper document.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
in response to a triggering operation for a content box within a first page…”
presenting, based on the position offset, the content box within the second page in a centered manner
The “in response to a triggering operation for a content box within a first page…” limitation(s) is mere data being selected to be manipulated recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data selected to be manipulated, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data selected to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05.
The “presenting” (displaying) limitation are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The user device in the output limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the user device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites no additional element(s).
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitation(s) of “in response to a triggering operation for a content box within a first page” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g), subsection II.
The “presenting”” limitation are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092 93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a user device in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim has no further additional element(s).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites the corresponding medium of the method of claim 1 wherein the system of Claim 9 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding medium of Claim 9 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1. Furthermore, Claim 9 has the following additional elements: medium. In regards to the medium:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: medium, to perform the triggering, determining, determining, and/or presenting steps. The medium in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic medium, performing a generic computer function triggering, determining, determining, and/or presenting functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using medium perform the triggering, determining, determining, and/or presenting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the corresponding device of the method of claim 1 wherein the system of Claim 10 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding device of Claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1. Furthermore, Claim 10 has the following additional elements: storage device and processing device. In regards to the storage device and processing device:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: storage device and processing device, to perform the triggering, determining, determining, and/or presenting steps. The medium in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage device and processing device, performing a generic computer function triggering, determining, determining, and/or presenting functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using storage device and processing device perform the triggering, determining, determining, and/or presenting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 11-21
As per dependent claim(s) 2, the limitation(s) of “content box is presented …” and “…presenting a background mask” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Presenting (Displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 3, the limitation(s) of “…receiving a user interaction operation…” and “…notifying a user” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Receiving and Notifying (Providing) data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 4, the limitation of “…being recorded in a page source page” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “being recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing information down on paper with a pencil/pen.
Similarly, the limitation “determining a position parameter of the first page within the second page” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identity the location values for an object to be placed on a paper document.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil 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.
Furthermore, the limitation “in response to a triggering operation for a content box within a first page…” limitation(s) is mere data being selected to be manipulated recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data selected to be manipulated, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data selected to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, “a triggering operation” is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g), subsection II. The claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the limitation “sending a notification event” …”second page to return…” and “receiving the position parameter…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving/return and transmitting (sending) data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 5, the limitation of “…invoking a target content box…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “invoking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining …” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using a value for a first parameter the same for a second parameter.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a 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.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “content box is presented …” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Presenting (Displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 7, the limitation “subtracting …”, and “subtracting…” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. That is, “subtracting” in the context of this claim encompasses an act of mathematical calculation using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number such as subtracting varies offsets to calculate a target height offset of the content box. The user is able to use pencil and paper to determine target height offset using a mathematical subtraction equation.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining …” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identity the location values for an object to be placed on a paper document
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a 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. If a claim limitation, under its broadest 5 10 15 20 reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 11-16, Claims 11-16 recites the corresponding device form of the method form of claims 2-7 wherein the device of Claims 11-16 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-7. Therefore, the corresponding device of Claims 11-16 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-7.
As per dependent claims 17-21, Claims 17-21 recites the corresponding medium form of the method form of claims 2-7 wherein the medium of Claims 17-21 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-7. Therefore, the corresponding medium of Claims 17-21 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Y0n9 (“Apply postMessage”, 11/14/2019, 10 pages)
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 a first display parameter 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 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 parameter, 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 (4-6: 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)
As per dependent claim 2, Y0n9 discloses if the content box is presented within the second page in a centered manner based on the position offset, presenting a background mask on an upper layer of the second page, the background mask being for covering a page display area corresponding to the second page (Pg7-9)
As per dependent claim 3, Y0n9 discloses wherein the content box comprises: a modal box for receiving a user interactive operation on a page 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 being 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 in response to a triggering operation for a content box within the first page, determining a position parameter of the first page within the second page comprises: in response to a triggering operation for the content box within the first page, 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)
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.
Claim(s) 5, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y0n9 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 a predetermined display parameter for controlling a corresponding content box to be presented in a centered manner within a page where the content box is triggered; and determining the predetermined display parameter of the target content box as the first display parameter. (pg 5-6) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose: invoking a target content box in a content box component library based on content box identification information comprised in the triggering operation, and each content box in the content box component library has a predetermined display parameter 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 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 instrinic 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 a first display parameter of the content box within the first page comprises: invoking a target 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 content box in the content box component library has a predetermined display parameter for controlling a corresponding content box to be presented in a centered manner within a page where the content box is triggered; and determining the predetermined display parameter of the target content box as the first display parameter.
As per dependent claims 14 and 20, Claims 14 and 20 recites similar limitations in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y0n9 in further view of Shen (CN111797344A, 10/20/2020) (Cited on IDS filed on 7/19/2024) (Examiner's Note: An examiner provided English machine translation of CN111797344A generated by the EPO is attached with this Office Action.
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determining 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 as the first display parameter of the content box within the first page; determining 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 as the position parameter of the first page within the second page; and determining a width of the second page and a height of the second page as the second display parameter. 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.
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)
As per dependent claims 15 and 21, Claims 15 and 21 recites similar limitations in Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y0n9
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 (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 claims 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 processing device 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 processing device 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 11-13, Claims 11-13 recites the corresponding device form of the method form of claims 2-4 wherein the device of Claims 11-13 contains similar subject matter/limitations of the method of claims 2-4. Therefore, the corresponding device of Claims 11-13 are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-4.
As per dependent claims 17-19, Claims 17-19 recites the corresponding medium form of the method form of claims 2-4 wherein the medium of Claims 17-19 contains similar subject matter/limitations of the method of claims 2-4. Therefore, the corresponding medium of Claims 17-19 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
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