CTFR 18/820,416 CTFR 83072 Detailed Action The instant application having Application No. 18/820,416 has a total of 13 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 10 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner. This Office action is in response to the claims filed 2/25/26. Claims 1-13 are pending. NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawes (U.S. Patent No. 6,094,662), herein referred to as Hawes in view of Papakostas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0232538), herein referred to as Papakostas et al . Referring to claim 1, Hawes disclose as claimed, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform: displaying, on a display, an entry field that accepts input of a uniform resource locator (URL) ( see fig. 1, showing a display unit and col. 4, lines 30-45 states that a user inputs a URL in a browser which is displayed on a display device. A number of possible browsers are listed such as Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, both of which have entry fields to accept inputs of URLs. Therefore, Hawes does teach displaying on a display unit, an entry field that accepts input of a URL ); accepting, in the entry field, input of the URL from a user ( see col. 4, lines 30-55, where a user inputs a URL into a browser and it is used to access the network through a server ); and executing control to perform a process of obtaining a content available at a first URL, user input of which was accepted in the entry field, in a case where the first URL does not match a second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted ( see col. 1, lines 65-67 and col. 2, lines 1-12, where a user may access a first URL and then enter a second URL, which is then retrieved. See col. Col. 4, lines 30-45, where the browser maintains a record of the URLS visited. Therefore, multiple URLS which do not match may be in the history list, which URLS would have been accepted in the entry field ), Hawes discloses the claimed invention except for not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted. However, Papakostas et al. disclose not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted ( see para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. Papakostas is being combined with Hawes, which teaches entering the URL in an entry field and displayed it ). Hawes and Papakostas et al. analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of loading web content ( see Hawes, abstract and Papakostas et al., abstract and para. 20-21 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawes to comprise not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted, as taught by Papakostas et al., in order to save bandwidth and processing power by not performing duplicate tasks. As to claim 2, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the program further causes the computer to perform executing control to perform a process of obtaining a content available at the second URL ( see Hawes, col. 4, lines 30-55, where a user inputs a URL into a browser and it is used to access the network through a server ), and in the case where the first URL matches the second URL, control not to read a cache for the content available at the second URL is executed ( see Papakostas et al., para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. Therefore the cache is not read ). As to claim 3, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein in the case where the first URL matches the second URL, control not to access a server specified by the first URL is executed ( see Papakostas et al., para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. ). As to claim 4, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the program further causes the computer to perform accepting an instruction to update the content available at the first URL, and the control to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL is executed in a case where the instruction is accepted ( see Hawes, col. 5, lines 13-20, where a user may request refreshing of the web page and then the content is retrieved again and updated ). As to claim 5, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 2, wherein the control to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL is executed in a case where caching of the content available at the second URL is prohibited ( see Papakostas et al., para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. Therefore the cache is not read a second time. The first URL request would still be executed though ). As to claim 6, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the program further causes the computer to perform setting a timer for obtaining times at which the input of the first URL and the input of the second URL were accepted, and the control to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL is executed in a case where a time from the acceptance of the input of the second URL until the acceptance of the input of the first URL obtained by the set timer is more than or equal to a first threshold value ( see Papakostas et al., para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. The example threshold is one second, but any other threshold may be set for the timer ). As to claim 7, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the input of the first URL is accepted in a case where the first URL is input into a URL box and an operation item for confirming the input is pressed ( see Hawes, col. 5, lines 13-57, where a user inputs a URL into a browser and then may click a reload button to request retransmission of the web page ). As to claim 8, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the program is installed in an image forming apparatus ( see Hawes, col. 3, lines 48-55, where the client has a display device allowing the user to visually observe images ). Referring to claim 9, Hawes disclose as claimed, an information processing apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor which function as: a display unit for displaying on a display, an entry field that accepts input of a uniform resource locator (URL) ( see fig. 1, showing a display unit and col. 4, lines 30-45 states that a user inputs a URL in a browser which is displayed on a display device. A number of possible browsers are listed such as Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, both of which have entry fields to accept inputs of URLs. Therefore, Hawes does teach displaying on a display unit, an entry field that accepts input of a URL ); an acceptance unit configured to accept, in the entry field, input of the URL from a user ( see col. 4, lines 30-55, where a user inputs a URL into a client device browser and it is used to access the network through a server. See col. 3, lines 48-60, where the client device contains memory and a processor ); and a control unit configured to execute control to perform a process of obtaining a content available at a first URL, user input of which was accepted in the entry field, in a case where the first URL does not match a second URL that had been displayed before the acceptance unit accepted the input of the first URL ( see col. 1, lines 65-67 and col. 2, lines 1-12, where a user may access a first URL and then enter a second URL, which is then retrieved. See col. Col. 4, lines 30-45, where the browser maintains a record of the URLS visited. Therefore, multiple URLS which do not match may be in the history list, which URLS would have been accepted in the entry field. See col. 3, lines 48-67 and col. 4, lines 1-50, where the processor executes flowcharts used to obtain content and would be part of a control unit ), Hawes discloses the claimed invention except for not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted. However, Papakostas et al. disclose not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted ( see para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. Papakostas is being combined with Hawes, which teaches entering the URL in an entry field and displayed it ). Hawes and Papakostas et al. analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of loading web content ( see Hawes, abstract and Papakostas et al., abstract and para. 20-21 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawes to comprise not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted, as taught by Papakostas et al., in order to save bandwidth and processing power by not performing duplicate tasks. Referring to claim 10, Hawes disclose as claimed, a controlling method of an information processing apparatus comprising the steps of: displaying on a display, an entry field that accepts input of a uniform resource locator (URL) ( see fig. 1, showing a display unit and col. 4, lines 30-45 states that a user inputs a URL in a browser which is displayed on a display device. A number of possible browsers are listed such as Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, both of which have entry fields to accept inputs of URLs. Therefore, Hawes does teach displaying on a display unit, an entry field that accepts input of a URL ); accepting, in the entry field, input of the URL from a user ( see col. 4, lines 30-55, where a user inputs a URL into a browser and it is used to access the network through a server ); and executing control to perform a process of obtaining a content available at a first URL, user input of which was accepted in the entry field, in a case where the first URL does not match a second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted ( see col. 1, lines 65-67 and col. 2, lines 1-12, where a user may access a first URL and then enter a second URL, which is then retrieved. See col. Col. 4, lines 30-45, where the browser maintains a record of the URLS visited. Therefore, multiple URLS which do not match may be in the history list, which URLS would have been accepted in the entry field ). Hawes discloses the claimed invention except for not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted. However, Papakostas et al. disclose not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted ( see para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. Papakostas is being combined with Hawes, which teaches entering the URL in an entry field and displayed it ). Hawes and Papakostas et al. analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of loading web content ( see Hawes, abstract and Papakostas et al., abstract and para. 20-21 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawes to comprise not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL that had been displayed before the user input of the first URL was accepted, as taught by Papakostas et al., in order to save bandwidth and processing power by not performing duplicate tasks. As to claim 11, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the first URL is a URL that has been input to the entry field by the user after user input of the second URL was accepted in the entry field and a content based on the second URL was displayed ( see Hawes, col. 4, lines 30-45, where a user inputs a URL into a browser. A browser such as Netscape or Internet Explorer has an entry field and then displays content. See col. 1, lines 65-67 and col. 2, lines 1-7, where multiple pages may be accessed and displayed, one at a time ). As to claim 12, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL, the process of obtaining the content available at the first URL is not performed, and displaying a content based on the second URL is continued ( see Papakostas et al., para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request (within 2 seconds from each other) and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. Papakostas is being combined with Hawes, which teaches entering the URL in an entry field and displaying it. Therefore if a URL request is ignored, then the previous request that is still displaying content would continue displaying it ). As to claim 13, Hawes and Papakostas et al. also disclose the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the program is executed in a printing apparatus ( see Hawes, fig. 2, showing a printing apparatus. See col. 5, lines 59-67, where browsers may obtain page information about printers ) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that due to the features of claim 1, it cannot avoid performing a process of obtaining content in a case where a user inputs a duplicate URL that has already been displayed. However, this appears to be the opposite of what claim 1 states, as claim 1 recites “not to perform the process of obtaining the content available at the first UTL in a case where the first URL the user input of which was accepted in the entry field matches the second URL...” Applicant argues that Hawes does not disclose or suggest displaying on a display unit, an entry field that accepts input of a URL. However, Hawes, fig. 1, showing a display unit and col. 4, lines 30-45 states that a user inputs a URL in a browser which is displayed on a display device. A number of possible browsers are listed such as Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, both of which have entry fields to accept inputs of URLs. Therefore, Hawes does teach displaying on a display unit, an entry field that accepts input of a URL. Hawes, col. 4, lines 30-34 also states that the browser maintains a record of the URLs visited in an history list. Therefore a second URL could be entered as well as a first URL. Applicant additionally argues that Hawes does not disclose any functions conditioned on matching the first and second URL. However, Papakostas was cited for matching URLs. See para. 154, where a media request may have the same URL as a previous request and is identified as a duplicate request and is ignored or removed. Applicant argues that Papakostas does not disclose where the URLS that are used for matching are URLS that have been input by a user and displayed. However, Papakostas is being combined with Hawes, which does teach the URL input and displaying. CLOSING COMMENTS Conclusion a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i) : a(1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION Per the instant office action, claims 1-13 stand rejected. 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN OTTO whose telephone number is (571)270-1626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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. /A.O/Examiner, Art Unit 2132 /HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/820,416 Page 2 Art Unit: 2132
Prosecution Insights