DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, Michael (US 2005/0044491 A1) in view of Marchant, Benoit (US 2008/0307390 A1).
As in Claim 1, Peterson teaches a page rendering method, comprising:
obtaining, in response to a page rendering request for a target activity template, a template definition file corresponding to the target activity template, wherein the template definition file defines an element to be rendered (at least pars. 11-13, 22, 28, 33-40, in response to a request for a web page, a definition file 202(or 108) containing pointers to template files 204 (or 110) and content file 206 (or 112) and content file 206, the template file defines an element/content to be rendered (e.g., look and feel, layout, etc.));
obtaining an element definition file corresponding to the element to be rendered in the template definition file, wherein the element to be rendered comprises a page component and a logic function, and the element definition file defines a page component and a logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered (at least pars. 11-13, 22- 28, 33-40, the content file can be obtained and rendered in the template file, the content file includes content or element to be rendered for the web page);
obtaining the page component and the logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered from a target storage pool (at least pars. 11-13, 22- 28, 33-40, the content or element of the web page can be received from the definition file 202 (or 108)); and
rendering an activity configuration page corresponding to the target activity template based on the page component and the logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered (at least pars. 11-13, 22- 28, 33-40, the web page can be provided based on the template file and content file for the web page).
Peterson does not appear to explicitly teach obtaining an element definition file comprises a logic function, and the element definition file defines a logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered; obtaining the logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered from a target storage pool; rendering an activity configuration page based on the logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Marchant teaches obtaining an element definition file comprises a logic function, and the element definition file defines a logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered (par. 20, HTML or source files defines files includes a logic function corresponding to components s to be rendered); obtaining the logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered from a target storage poo (pars. 16 and 20-21);
rendering an activity configuration page based on the logic function corresponding to the element to be rendered (pars. 20-21, the web page can be rendered based on the HTML template or the source/content files).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for rendering the web page by obtaining the template file and the content file, as taught by Peterson, and to render the web page by obtaining the content or source files including the logic functions, as taught by Marchant. The motivation is to define and manage the source or content file, ensuring elements are rendered based on the content file.
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
3. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, Michael (US 2005/0044491 A1) in view of Marchant, Benoit (US 2008/0307390 A1) and further in view of Okada, Shuichi (US 2018/0268074 A1)
As in Claim 4, Peterson-Marchant teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Peterson-Marchant does not teach storing a pre-constructed page component carrying component identification into the target storage pool; and/or, storing a logic function carrying function identification into the target storage pool.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Okada teaches storing a pre-constructed page component carrying component identification into the target storage pool; and/or, storing a logic function carrying function identification into the target storage pool (pars. 44, 50, GUI components, such as buttons are registered by a button registration unit 401 and stored in a menu screen management table 1900 held by a menu management unit 402, where each GUI button is associated with a unique button ID and corresponding metadata such as button name and software module. The system sores and manages button identifiers in a button ID management table held by a button ID storage unit 409).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for rendering the web page by obtaining the template file and the content file, as taught by Peterson, in view of Marchant’s teachings, and to store GUI components in the storage unit, as taught by Okada. The motivation is to enable centralized registration, identification, and management of GUI components so that they can e efficiently retrieved, verified, and executed.
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale
4. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, Michael (US 2005/0044491 A1) in view of Marchant, Benoit (US 2008/0307390 A1) and further in view of Hanson, Trevor (US 20090259612 A1).
As in Claim 6, Peterson-Marchant teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Peterson-Marchant does not teach that a first logic function in the target storage pool is implemented based on a conduit function, the conduit function comprises synchronous conduit functions or asynchronous conduit functions, and the first logic function comprises a data validation function, a data transformation function, and/or a linkage validation function.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Hanson teaches that a first logic function in the target storage pool is implemented based on a conduit function, the conduit function comprises synchronous conduit functions or asynchronous conduit functions, and the first logic function comprises a data validation function, a data transformation function, and/or a linkage validation function (pars. 19-20, 75-77, 157-159, 165, Hanson teaches a message conduit system where logic functions are implemented as rule-driven pipelines operating in an event/message-driven (asynchronous) manner. The logic functions include validation and data transformation)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for rendering the web page by obtaining the template file and the content file, as taught by Peterson, in view of Marchant’s teachings, and to implement the logic functions with the conduit system, as taught by Hanson. The motivation is to enable flexible, configurable processing pipeline where data can be dynamically validated, transformed, and touted in real time using rule-based logic without changing endpoint systems.
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, Michael (US 2005/0044491 A1) in view of Marchant, Benoit (US 2008/0307390 A1) and further in view of Joshi et al. (US 2013/0212484 A1)
As in Claim 7, Peterson-Marchant teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Peterson-Marchant does not teach that different elements to be rendered that are defined in the template definition file belong to the same or different workflow modules, and the workflow module is abstracted based on an activity configuration process.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Joshi teaches that different elements to be rendered that are defined in the template definition file belong to the same or different workflow modules, and the workflow module is abstracted based on an activity configuration process pars. 58, 61, 73, 96-97, UI elements can be grouped by workflow and functions).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for rendering the web page by obtaining the template file and the content file, as taught by Peterson, in view of Marchant’s teachings, and to group the UI elements based on the workflow and functions, as taught by Joshi. The motivation is to organize/group related UI elements based on workflow and function so that they can be more efficiently access through a simplified single point of entry.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7 and objected to under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in an independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 19 are dependent of claim 5 and the references are not provided for claims 12 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights