DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 7 April 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. Hence, this action has been made FINAL.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
The reply filed on 7 April 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C § 101, Applicant has amended each of the independent claims and asserts that “the human mind is not practically equipped to render objects on interfaces of terminal devices.” The examiner agrees that these newly added limitations overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 and 103, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments.
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, 2, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 20150106695 A1 (Antipa) in view of US Patent Publication 20160041954 A1 (Bloch et al.).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Antipa discloses a method for improving rendering of documents, comprising:
receiving a triggering operation for a document (Antipa ¶ [0021], "the component in section 100 is selected when the user moves the mouse pointer 110 inside the region of the web page containing section 100, which generates a mouse-enter event within the web browser."), wherein the document is output by a client (Antipa ¶ [0012], "A structured document, such as an HTML, XML or other markup language-based document, is generated and configured to present, when rendered by a web browser, the components of the web page and at least a portion of the web page editor in a common frame of a browser window. ") installed on a terminal device (Antipa ¶ [0015], "FIG. 1 illustrates an example system for visual path resolution in a context separated authoring environment of a REST- and component-based content management system configured in accordance with an embodiment. ... The user computing system includes a browser that can be used to access and interact with a web application executable by the server, and for accessing and changing web resources in the content repository." See Figure 1, which illustrates the browser installed on a client user computing system), wherein the document comprises a first object and a second object (Antipa ¶ [0012], "a web page editor associated with a REST-based CMS is activated for editing a web page having a plurality of Document Object Model (DOM) components." A plurality of DOM components is considered analogous to first and second components), and wherein the first object comprises a first content of a first component (Antipa ¶ [0018], "the GUI can include a browser window for displaying a web page having several components, including, for example, a section of text or other content generally indicated at 100. It will be noted that the web page depicted in FIG. 2 is a DOM representation in which the formatted content of the web page is visible in the GUI, but the underlying markup language, scripts and/or style sheet instructions are not visible in the GUI. The DOM representation can be generated by the web browser in response to receiving and parsing a structured document that is generated by a web application (e.g., a CMS), such as the web application of FIG. 1." See Fig. 2, which illustrates a DOM object comprising a first content of a first component);
in response to the triggering operation, rendering the first object on an interface of the terminal device by using a front-end control embedded in the client (Antipa ¶ [0021], "In response to selecting the component, the structured document is updated to switch or toggle from presenting the selected DOM component to presenting information about a property of the selected DOM component in the common frame of the browser window. " Toggling the presentation of a DOM component in a user interface is considered analogous to rendering the first object in a front-end control of a target client), wherein the front-end control comprises a browser (Antipa ¶ [0018], "FIG. 2 illustrates an example graphical user interface of a web browser, such as the browser of FIG. 1, configured in accordance with an embodiment. As can be seen, the GUI can include a browser window for displaying a web page having several components, including, for example, a section of text or other content generally indicated at 100."); and
rendering the second object on the interface of the terminal device by the client (Antipa ¶ [0021], "FIG. 5 illustrates the example graphical user interface of FIG. 4 while the web page editor is active and while one of the components is selected, according to an embodiment.") [without using the front-end control to improve rendering quality and efficiency], wherein the second object comprises a second content of a second component (Antipa Figure 5 illustrates a plurality of components (e.g. dotted line boxes) comprising unique contents (e.g. "Section 1")).
Antipa does not disclose all of rendering a second object without using the front-end control.
However, Bloch et al. disclose wherein the document is output by a client installed on a terminal device (Bloch et al. ¶ [0035], "The operating system 122 provides modules that allow applications on the client device 120 (e.g., the web editing application 126) to interact with hardware components of the client device 120, such as the hardware components described in FIG. 7. ... In one embodiment, the operating system 122 is APPLE IOS and the web rendering module 124 is the UIWebView class. In another embodiment, the operating system 122 is GOOGLE ANDROID and the web rendering module 124 is the WebView class." Web rendering module 124 is considered analogous to a client), wherein the document comprises a first object (Bloch et al. ¶ [0041], "The native overlay generator 206 sends the web page 202 to the web rendering module 124, which causes the web rendering module 124 to render and display a visual representation of the web page 202." Web page 202 is considered analogous to a first object) and a second object (Bloch et al. ¶ [0043], "After receiving the layout data 210, the native overlay generator 206 causes the client device 120 to generate a native overlay 212." Native overlay 212 is considered analogous to a second object), and wherein the first object comprises a first content of a first component (Bloch et al. ¶ [0041], "The native overlay generator 206 sends the web page 202 to the web rendering module 124, which causes the web rendering module 124 to render and display a visual representation of the web page 202. The visual representation of the web page 202 is referred to herein as the rendered web page 208. ... The web rendering module 124 also generates and returns layout data 210 about the rendered web page 208." Rendered web page 208 is considered analogous to a first content of a first component);
[in response to the triggering operation,] rendering the first object on an interface of the terminal device by using a front-end control embedded in the client (Bloch et al. ¶ [0041], "The native overlay generator 206 sends the web page 202 to the web rendering module 124, which causes the web rendering module 124 to render and display a visual representation of the web page 202. The visual representation of the web page 202 is referred to herein as the rendered web page 208. ... The web rendering module 124 also generates and returns layout data 210 about the rendered web page 208."), wherein the front-end control comprises a browser (Bloch et al. ¶ [0034]-[0035], "As shown in FIG. 1, the client device 120 executes an operating system 122 and a web editing application 126. The operating system 122 provides modules that allow applications on the client device 120 (e.g., the web editing application 126) to interact with hardware components of the client device 120, such as the hardware components described in FIG. 7." Web editing application 126 is considered analogous to a browser); and
rendering the second object on the interface of the terminal device by the client without using the front-end control to improve rendering quality and efficiency (Bloch et al. ¶ [0043], "After receiving the layout data 210, the native overlay generator 206 causes the client device 120 to generate a native overlay 212. The native overlay 212 includes an arrangement of one or more cells, and each cell has a position and size that matches a respective visual element of the rendered web page 208. In one embodiment, the native overlay generator 206 interacts with a layout generation module in the operating system 122 to generate the native overlay 212." Native overlay 212 is considered analogous to a second object), wherein the second object comprises a second content of a second component (Bloch et al. ¶ [0044], "In one embodiment, each cell in the native overlay 212 is transparent, and the native overlay generator 206 causes the native overlay 212 to be displayed on top of the rendered web page 208. As a result, the rendered web page 208 remains visible under the native overlay 212, but the native overlay 212 captures any gestures or other interactions that the user performs on the screen.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Antipa’s document rendering method to incorporate Bloch et al.’s native rendering of second content because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Antipa’s rendering method as modified by Bloch et al.’s native rendering of second content can yield a predictable result of improving web performance since the computing power required to render second content could be offloaded to a native processor. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Antipa’s rendering method the ability to do Bloch et al.’s native rendering of second content since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Antipa further discloses wherein the first component comprises a content block in the document; and the first content comprises a file embedded in the content block (Antipa ¶ [0021], "FIG. 5 illustrates the example graphical user interface of FIG. 4 while the web page editor is active and while one of the components is selected, according to an embodiment." See Fig. 5, which illustrates a target content block (selected box with solid borders), and first content comprises a file embedded in the target content block ("Path: /path/to/the/content")).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Antipa discloses an non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a computer program stored thereon (Antipa ¶ [0016], "Various components of the system shown in FIG. 1, such as the browser and web application, can be implemented in software, such as a set of instructions (e.g. C, C++, object-oriented C, JavaScript, Java, BASIC, etc.) encoded on any computer readable medium or computer program product (e.g., hard drive, server, disc, or other suitable non-transient memory or set of memories), that when executed by one or more processors, cause the various methodologies provided herein to be carried out.").
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are similar to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are similar to that of claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Antipa discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores executable codes (Antipa ¶ [0016], "Various components of the system shown in FIG. 1, such as the browser and web application, can be implemented in software, such as a set of instructions (e.g. C, C++, object-oriented C, JavaScript, Java, BASIC, etc.) encoded on any computer readable medium or computer program product (e.g., hard drive, server, disc, or other suitable non-transient memory or set of memories), that when executed by one or more processors, cause the various methodologies provided herein to be carried out.").
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are similar to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are similar to that of claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 3-5, 11, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Antipa in view of Bloch et al. as applied to claims 1, 9, and 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20160283461 A1 (Guo et al.).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Antipa further discloses obtaining, by the front-end control, parsed data based on the document (Antipa ¶ [0009], "Commercial web browsers use the Document Object Model (DOM) as an interface for representing and interacting with objects in HTML and XML documents. As used herein, the term "object," in addition to its plain and ordinary meaning, includes individual components of a web page, such as HTML elements (defined by start and end tags), that have been parsed into the DOM by the browser." DOM components are considered analogous to target parsed data); and
rendering, by the front-end control, the first object (Antipa ¶ [0021], "FIG. 5 illustrates the example graphical user interface of FIG. 4 while the web page editor is active and while one of the components is selected, according to an embodiment." See Fig. 5, which illustrates rendering objects by front-end control).
Antipa in view of Bloch et al. does not explicitly disclose all of extracting labels from a document.
However, Guo et al. disclose obtaining, by a front-end control, parsed data based on the document (Guo et al. ¶ [0046], "After pulling the webpage, the browser parses the webpage to generate a DOM tree."), wherein the parsed data comprises a first label corresponding to the first object (Guo et al. ¶ [0046], "Each node unit in the DOM tree corresponds to an elemental unit in the HTML webpage script, that is, a tag." A tag is considered analogous to a label), and the first label is a label customized for the first object (Guo et al. ¶ [0049], "In a tag of the HTML webpage script, a tag type <embed> ... is used for marking a kind of plug-in resource, and the plug-in resource presents content by using a type of plug-in (for example, a browser player plug-in) embedded in a browser.); and
rendering, by the front-end control, a first object based on the parsed data (Guo et al. ¶ [0055], "After the plug-in resource that corresponds to the plug-in tag is extracted, the plug-in resource may be transmitted to a corresponding player for playing.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Antipa in view of Bloch et al. to incorporate Guo et al.’s plug-in label extraction.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “because this solution can implement extracting of a plug-in resource on the side of a browser terminal without relying on a background server, this solution is technically easy for implementation and can reduce system development costs,” as noted by the Guo et al. disclosure in paragraph [0057].
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Antipa further discloses wherein the first object corresponds to an element in the target document (Antipa ¶ [0021], "FIG. 5 illustrates the example graphical user interface of FIG. 4 while the web page editor is active and while one of the components is selected, according to an embodiment." A selected component is considered analogous to a target element).
Guo et al. further disclose parsing the document to obtain string types corresponding to respective elements in the document (Guo et al. ¶ [0045]-[0051], "Step S102: Parse the webpage to obtain a DOM node of a tag in a webpage script. ... Step S103: Obtain a plug-in tag node from the DOM node.");
in a case where a preset string type corresponding to the element is obtained, creating a webpage component for the first object (Guo et al. ¶ [0052], "Step S104: When a plug-in tag corresponding to the plug-in tag node is a predetermined type tag, extract a plug-in resource that corresponds to the plug-in tag." A plug-in resource is considered analogous to a target webpage component);
determining a label corresponding to the webpage component (Guo et al. ¶ [0053]-[0054], "When creating a plug-in tag (embed) node, the browser obtains the plug-in tag node, and determines whether a plug-in tag corresponding to the plug-in tag node is a predetermined type tag according to a type or classid of the plug-in tag node, that is, whether complies with a predetermined protocol specification, and if yes, extracts a plug-in resource that corresponds to the plug-in tag. As an implementation manner, src/url/param_url of the plug-in tag may be extracted." A predetermined type tag (e.g. classid) is considered analogous to a target label); and
generating the parsed data, wherein the label is embedded in the parsed data (Guo et al. ¶ [0050], "The browser creates a DOM node for each tag in the webpage script during a DOM tree generating stage, which includes creating a plug-in tag (embed) node, and each plug-in tag node has a designated type or classification identifier (classid) used for identifying a type of the plug-in resource." A DOM tree is considered analogous to the target parsed data. A classification identifier is considered analogous to a target label).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Guo et al. further disclose wherein creating the webpage component for the first object comprises: creating the webpage component for the first object by inheriting a specified webpage element in the document (Guo et al. ¶ [0057], "The solution of this embodiment does not rely on a background server, but implements, at a browser terminal, extracting of resource information that complies with a predetermined protocol specification in a webpage, and can complete extracting of content that complies with the specific protocol specification when the webpage has not been truly rendered, thereby improving a speed of extracting predetermined webpage content and also improving a webpage display speed." Resource information that complies with a specific protocol specification is considered analogous to a specified webpage element. Therefore, extracting resource information from a webpage is considered analogous to inheriting a specified webpage element.).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to that of claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 12 are similar in scope to that of claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to that of claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 16 are similar in scope to that of claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 17 are similar in scope to that of claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 6-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Antipa in view of Bloch et al. in view of Guo et al. as applied to claims 3 and 15 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20160306527 A1 (Davidchuk et al.).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Antipa in view of Bloch et al. in view of Guo et al. does not explicitly disclose all of binding a preset triggering event to a preset operation program.
However, Davidchuk et al. disclose wherein the method further comprises, after obtaining the parsed data, binding a preset triggering event for the first object to a preset operation program (Davidchuk et al. ¶ [0068], "Browser DOM element events starting with on, such as onclick or onkeypress, can be wired to a controller action. Developers can wire browser events to controller actions.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Antipa in view of Bloch et al. in view of Guo et al. to incorporate Davidchuk et al.’s program binding because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Antipa’s front-end control as modified by Davidchuk et al.’s program binding can yield a predictable result of improving usability since allowing developers to bind programs to certain browser events could increase the developer’s flexibility in designing DOM components for a webpage. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Antipa’s front-end control the ability to do Davidchuk et al.’s program binding since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Guo et al. further disclose wherein the parsed data comprises a DOM tree (Guo et al. ¶ [0046], "After pulling the webpage, the browser parses the webpage to generate a DOM tree.").
Davidchuk et al. further disclose wherein [the parsed data comprises a DOM tree, and] the preset triggering event comprises a DOM event (Davidchuk et al. ¶ [0068], "Browser DOM element events starting with on, such as onclick or onkeypress, can be wired to a controller action. Developers can wire browser events to controller actions.").
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Davidchuk et al. further disclose running, in response to the preset triggering event for the first object, the preset operation program bound to the preset triggering event (Davidchuk et al. ¶ [0083], "Browser DOM element events starting with on, such as onclick or onkeypress, can be wired to a controller action. ... When an event is fired, it may trigger actions to change data and call rerender( ) on affected components.").
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to that of claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 19 are similar in scope to that of claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 20 are similar in scope to that of claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B VOGT whose telephone number is (571)272-7028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 8pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARAS D SHAH can be reached at (571)270-1650. 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.
/JACOB B VOGT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
06/14/2026
Prosecution Insights