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
1. This is in response to application filed on 08/12/2024 in which claim 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 15 and 20 are in independent form.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,099,597.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as claims 1-20 of the current application are broadened versions of claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,099,597.
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.
4. Claims 1- 7, 9, 12, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0103563) published on April 14, 2016 in view of Greenberger (US PG Pub 2019) published on January 02, 2020.
As per Claim 1, 15 and 20, Greenberg teaches A method comprising: determining, in response to receiving a request for a web page (para [0325], receives a request from a client for a wrap package, as taught by Greenberg),
that metadata for the web page includes an identifier of a viewport with in the web page(para [0069-71], and [0085], wrap package contains cards, representing pages, and wrap descriptors which include metadata for the layout of each card, as taught by Greenberg);
determining, based on the identifier, a condition table that contains associations between: conditions, and sub-pages of the web page that provide conditional content for the web page(para [0339], fig 11, elements 214 and 216, server retrieves corresponding wrap package descriptor based on device and version being in database. Content being available represents true, as taught by Greenberg);
determining that a particular condition of the conditions is satisfied, wherein the particular condition is associated, in the condition table, with a particular sub-page of the sub-pages (para [0339], fig 11, elements 214 and 216, server retrieves corresponding wrap package descriptor based on device and version being in database, as taught by Greenberg); and
generating web content for the web page including web page metadata that defines the web page and sub-page metadata that defines the particular sub-page, wherein the sub-page metadata is placed within the viewport(para [0070], each card contains elements, such as text, photos, images, videos, documents, as taught by Greenberg).
Greenberg does not explicitly teach a condition table corresponds to webpage
On the other hand, Greenberger teaches a condition table corresponds to webpage(Para[0066] multiple condition table corresponds to webpage, as taught by Greenberger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Greenberg invention with the teaching of Greenberger because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by generating webpage that specifies product information, wherein the configuring is based on the examining data of the product interaction data, and wherein the configuring is performed in response to a communication received from the user; and sending the configured webpage to the user.
As per claim 2, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches further comprising: before determining that the metadata for the web page includes the identifier of the viewport within the web page, receiving the request for the web page from a client device(Para[0119] input from a user, as taught by Greenberg); and
after generating the web content for the web page, providing the web content to the client device(Para[011][151-0155], as taught by Greenberg) .
As per claim 3, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches wherein reception of the web content by the client device causes a web browser of the client device to render the web page from the web content(Greenberg, para [0144], browser with plugin used for rendering).
As per claim 4, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches further comprising: determining, in response to receiving a second request for the web page, that the metadata for the web page includes the identifier of the viewport; determining, based on the identifier, the condition table; determining that a second particular condition of the conditions is satisfied, wherein the second particular condition is associated, in the condition table, with a second particular sub-page of the sub-pages; and generating second web content for the web page including second web page metadata that defines the web page and second sub-page metadata that defines the second particular sub-page, wherein the second sub-page metadata is placed within the viewport (Greenberg, para [0125], system includes multiple devices that access a server which provides wrapped packages specific to the client requesting the data; Greenberg, para [0339], fig 11, elements 214 and 216, server retrieves corresponding wrap package descriptor based on device and version being in database).
As per claim 5, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches wherein generating the web content for the web page comprises: providing, to a metadata resolver, the web page metadata and the sub-page metadata(para [0346], as taught by Greenberg); and receiving, from the metadata resolver, the web content(Para[0154], as taught by Greenberg).
As per claim 6, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches wherein generating the web content for the web page comprises generating blocks of the web content based on corresponding elements of the web page metadata and the sub-page metadata(7a-m shows web content, as taught by Greenberg).
As per claim 7 and 16, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches wherein the web page metadata and the sub-page metadata are in a structured data format, and wherein the web content includes a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) representation of at least part of the web page metadata and the sub-page metadata(Greenberg, para [0123], cards authored in HTML).
As per claim 9, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches wherein determining that the particular condition of the conditions is satisfied comprises: evaluating at least some of a set of conditions in the condition table; and determining that the particular condition is true(Greenberg, para [0339], fig 11, elements 214 and 216, server retrieves corresponding wrap package descriptor based on device and version being in database. Content being available represents true).
As per claim 12, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches further comprising: determining that the metadata for the web page includes a second identifier of a second viewport with in the web page (para [0325], as taught by Greenberg);
determining, based on the second identifier, a second condition table that contains associations between: second conditions, and second sub-pages of the web page that provide second conditional content for the web page(para [0339], fig 11, elements 214 and 216, as taught by Greenberg);;
determining that a second particular condition of the second conditions is satisfied, wherein the second particular condition is associated, in the second condition table(Para[0066] multiple condition table corresponds to webpage, as taught by Greenberger), with a second particular sub-page of the second sub-pages(para [0339], fig 11, elements 214 and 216, , as taught by Greenberg);; and
generating second web content for the web page including the web page metadata that defines the web page and second sub-page metadata that defines the second particular sub-page, wherein the second sub-page metadata is placed within the second viewport (Greenberg, para [0125], system includes multiple devices that access a server which provides wrapped packages specific to the client requesting the data; Greenberg, para [0339], fig 11, elements 214 and 216, server retrieves corresponding wrap package descriptor based on device and version being in database; Greenberg, para [0196], wrap packages contain multiple card descriptors, each card descriptor represents individual page metadata).
As per claim 14 and 19, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger teaches wherein placing the sub-page metadata within the viewport comprises replacing a specification of the viewport with the sub-page metadata or incorporating the sub-page metadata into the specification of the viewport (Greenberg, para [0346], renders wrap package at the client device viewport).
5. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0103563) published on April 14, 2016 in view of Greenberger (US PG Pub 2019) published on January 02, 2020 in further view of Osmak(US PG Pub 2014/0019847).
As per claim 8 and 17, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger does not teach wherein determining the condition table comprises: looking up the identifier in a routing table; and determining that an entry of the routing table associates the condition table with the identifier.
On the other hand, Osmak teaches wherein determining the condition table comprises: looking up the identifier in a routing table; and determining that an entry of the routing table associates the condition table with the identifier (Osmak, para [0042], routing table used with request; Osmak, para [0032], request includes URI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Greenberg and Greenberger invention with the teaching of Osmak because doing so
would result in forward a request to a particular network resource (Osmak, para [0042]).
6. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0103563) published on April 14, 2016 in view of Greenberger (US PG Pub 2019) published on January 02, 2020 in further view of Kroger(US PG Pub 2012/0054596).
As per claim 10, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger does not teach wherein the particular condition is a logical or arithmetic expression involving one or more state variables as operands.
On the other hand, Kroger teaches wherein the particular condition is a logical or arithmetic expression involving one or more state variables as operands (Kroger, para [0048], page state variable sent with request to determine which content is shown or when a new content request is sent)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Greenberg and Greenberger invention with the teaching of Kroger because doing so
would have been to only transmit what is necessary and reducing resource intensive processes (Kroger, para [0006]).
As per claim 11, the combination Greenberg, Kroger and Greenberger teaches wherein the one or more state variables include a user group specification of a user that requested the web page(Kroger, para [0048], page state variable sent with request to determine which content is shown or when a new content request is sent).
7. Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0103563) published on April 14, 2016 in view of Greenberger (US PG Pub 2019) published on January 02, 2020 in further view of Balinsky(US PG Pub 2012/0185759).
As per claim 13 and 18, the combination Greenberg and Greenberger does not teach wherein a first author is granted exclusive modification rights to the particular sub-page, and wherein a second author is granted exclusive modification rights to a further sub-page of the sub-pages.
On the other hand, Balinsky teaches wherein a first author is granted exclusive modification rights to the particular sub-page, and wherein a second author is granted exclusive modification rights to a further sub-page of the sub-pages(Balinsky, para [0015], users in a collaborative setting have exclusive rights to corresponding sections content).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the content of Greenberg and Greenberger to include the collaborative editing of Ballinsky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide security in a collaborative editing process (Balinsky, para [0001]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McNabb (US PG Pub 2018/0246871) discloses detecting a first application event associated with a first layer included in a plurality of layers of a content page and accessing, via a template file, at least one parameter of the first layer that corresponds to the first application event. The method further includes modifying at least one aspect of the first layer based on the first application event and the at least one parameter to generate a first modified layer, and outputting the first modified layer for display.
9. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
10. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM 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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights