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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 06/28/2024.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Banerjee et al. (US 2022/0300524 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Banerjee discloses a computer-implemented method for dynamically loading user interface components, comprising: receiving, at a web server coupled to a wide area network, a request for a web page from a remote client of a user (fig.2B, “112”; [0037]; a remote user sends a request to access a web page);
generating, at the web server, an initial user interface for the requested web page, the requested web page having an associated document object model (DOM) (the web page is defined by a DOM);
initializing, at the web server, an extension registry and determining that the requested web page includes an extension ([0036], [0038]; a particular child extension is determined to be displayed);
querying, at the web server, the extension registry to identify a storage location for an extension module associated with the extension; loading, at the web server, the extension module from the storage location, the extension module for implementing a user interface component; inserting, at the web server, the extension module into the DOM; and providing, by the web server, the web page, including the DOM, to the remote client of the user (fig.3; [0038]; the extension is fetched from a CDN, inserted into the DOM of the host web application and displayed to the remote user).
As to claim 2, Banerjee discloses after inserting the extension module into the DOM, determining, at the web server, that the extension has a further extension ([0039], [0043]; further extensions can be loaded as needed by the user);
querying, at the web server, the extension registry to identify a storage location for a further extension module associated with the further extension; loading, at the web server, the further extension module from the storage location, the further extension module for implementing a user interface component; and inserting, at the web server, the further extension module into the DOM (fig.3; [0038]; the extension is fetched from a CDN, inserted into the DOM of the host web application and displayed to the remote user).
As to claim 3, Banerjee discloses wherein the requested web page is for a particular tenant among a plurality of tenants ([0036]; different subsets of extensions are accessible by different tenants).
As to claim 4, Banerjee discloses wherein the storage location of the extension module is located remotely from the web server ([0029]; extensions are stored remotely within a CDN).
As to claim 5, Banerjee discloses wherein the storage location of the extension module is located within a content delivery network (CDN) ([0029]; extensions are stored within a CDN).
As to claim 6, Banerjee discloses wherein the extension module is a widget associated with the particular tenant ([0036]; different subsets of extensions are accessible by different tenants).
As to claim 7, Banerjee discloses wherein the extension module is a micro app associated with the particular tenant ([0036]; different child web apps are accessible by different tenants).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
As to claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
As to claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
As to claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
As to claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
As to claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee in view of Van Rotterdam et al. (US 2020/0120092 A1).
As to claim 8, Banerjee does not expressly disclose wherein the tenant is a financial institution, and the micro app provides a loan application page.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Rotterdam discloses wherein the tenant is a financial institution, and a loan application page (fig.7, fig.8; a loan application page for a financial institution is illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Banerjee and Van Rotterdam before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the web application content presentation system taught by Banerjee to include financial services taught by Van Rotterdam with the motivation being to enhance financial services using a common platform with customized extensions.
As to claim 9, Banerjee does not expressly disclose wherein the extension module is a data provider function associated with the particular tenant used to obtain data about an account associated with the user from a remote source.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Rotterdam discloses wherein the extension module is a data provider function associated with the particular tenant used to obtain data about an account associated with the user from a remote source (fig.7, fig.8; the user enters personal information to a bank to apply for a loan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Banerjee and Van Rotterdam before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the web application content presentation system taught by Banerjee to include financial services taught by Van Rotterdam with the motivation being to enhance financial services using a common platform with customized extensions.
As to claim 10, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the tenant is a financial institution, and the data provider function obtains data about a financial account of the user from the remote source (Van Rotterdam. fig.7, fig.8; a loan application page for a financial institution is illustrated).
As to claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
As to claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 9 above.
As to claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights