DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 12/11/2024 is considered.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 line 5 recites “tothe”. It appears as though this should recite “to the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull et al. (US 2009/0271713 A1) and further in view of Frei (US 2009/0037517 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Stull discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a server and from a first client device, first data associated with a first webpage being displayed in a first web browser on the first client device (Fig. 3A element 308 and Paragraph 0046: web browser add-in retrieves DOM representation of retrieved web page on host computer);
generating, by the server and based on the first data, a webpage corresponding to the first webpage (Fig. 3A element 310 and Paragraph 0047: add-in transforms DOM representation to from a transformed DOM representation of the web page);
sending, by the server, to a second client device, and while the first webpage is displayed in the first web browser, second data that is configured to enable rendering, in a second web browser on the second client device, the webpage, so that content in the first webpage is shared between the first client device and the second client device (Fig. 3A element 312, Fig. 3B elements 314-316, Paragraph 0048, and Paragraph 0049: the transformed DOM representation is sent to participant computers, where the participant computers render and display the DOM representation in a web browser);
receiving, by the server and from the first client device, an indication of an input event, on the first web browser, that occurs while the content in the first webpage is shared (Fig. 3B element 320, Paragraphs 0034-0039, and Paragraph 0050: input event on browser of host computer detected);
and sending, by the server to the second client device, third data associated with the input event, wherein the third data is configured to enable displaying, in the second web browser, one or more images representing the input event (Fig. 3B elements 320-326, Paragraph 0034, Paragraph 0051, and Paragraph 0052: detected event is sent to participant computers as a changed portion of DOM and/or reflecting the event to participant computers, where the participant computers can display images (e.g. pictorial reorientation of mouse cursor) with respect to the event).
While Stull teaches generating, by the server and based on the first data, a webpage corresponding to the first webpage and sending, by the server, to a second client device, and while the first webpage is displayed in the first web browser, second data that is configured to enable rendering, in a second web browser on the second client device, the webpage, so that content in the first webpage is shared between the first client device and the second client device, they fail to show a read-only webpage as recited in the claims. Frei teaches sharing webpages similar to that of Stull. In addition, Frei further teaches
modifying a shared DOM to remove the ability to click on interactive items such as HTML links (Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stull and Frei before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the generating, by the server and based on the first data, a webpage corresponding to the first webpage and sending, by the server, to a second client device, and while the first webpage is displayed in the first web browser, second data that is configured to enable rendering, in a second web browser on the second client device, the webpage, so that content in the first webpage is shared between the first client device and the second client device taught by Stull to include the modifying a shared DOM to remove the ability to click on interactive items such as HTML links of Frei, in order to obtain generating, by the server and based on the first data, a read-only webpage corresponding to the first webpage; and sending, by the server, to a second client device, and while the first webpage is displayed in the first web browser, second data that is configured to enable rendering, in a second web browser on the second client device, the read-only webpage, so that content in the first webpage is shared between the first client device and the second client device. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as avoiding unwanted actions would have been obtained, as suggested by Frei (Paragraph 0034 lines 5-7).
In regard to claim 2, Stull discloses wherein the first web page comprises a link to access a second webpage (Paragraph 0037 lines 5-7) and Frei discloses removing the ability to click on interactive items such as HTML links (Paragraph 0034). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the first webpage comprises a link to access a second webpage, and wherein the read-only webpage restricts accessing, via the link, the second webpage. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as avoiding unwanted actions would have been obtained, as suggested by Frei (Paragraph 0034 lines 5-7).
In regard to claim 3, Stull discloses wherein the sending the second data is based on a determination that a user associated with the second web browser does not have authority to access the first webpage (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-12: where the client does not have access rights to view the document).
In regard to claim 6, Stull discloses wherein the first data comprises at least one of: document object model (DOM) data; cascading style sheets (CSS) data; or a uniform resource locator (URL) link (Paragraph 0046: DOM).
In regard to claim 8, Stull discloses wherein the server and the first client device are located on the same physical device (Paragraph 0023 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0026, and Paragraph 0027: the host computer comprises both the first client device and the server).
In regard to claims 9-11 and 14, apparatus claims 9-11 and 14 correspond generally to method claims 1-3 and 8, respectively, and recite similar features in apparatus form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 15-17 and 20, medium claims 15-17 and 20 correspond generally to method claims 1-3 and 6, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull et al. (US 2009/0271713 A1), Frei (US 2009/0037517 A1), and further in view of Roy et al. (US 7149776 B1).
In regard to claim 7, while the combination of Stull and Frei teach generating, by the server and based on the first data, a read-only webpage corresponding to the first webpage, they fail to show the adding JavaScript (JS) data into the first data, as recited in the claims. Roy teaches sharing webpages similar to that of Stull and Frei. In addition, Roy further teaches
client independent transformations include the addition of JavaScript code to the page (Paragraph 0011 lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stull, Frei, and Roy before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the generating, by the server and based on the first data, a read-only webpage corresponding to the first webpage taught by the combination of Stull and Frei to include the client independent transformations include the addition of JavaScript code to the page of Frei, in order to obtain wherein generating the read-only webpage comprising adding JavaScript (JS) data into the first data. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as promoting the shared filling of form, redirect hyperlinks to collaboration server, enable propagation of browsing events, etc., would have been obtained, as suggested by Roy (Column 6 lines 43-49).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 4 and 5, the prior art of record fails to disclose the recited “generating a second read-only webpage corresponding to the second webpage; and storing, in a database, a mapping among the read-only webpage, the input event, and the second read-only webpage” in combination with the other elements recited.
In regard to claims 12 and 13, claims 12 and 13 recite similar subject matter as claims 4 and 5 and therefore similarly recite subject atter not disclosed by the prior art of record.
In regard to claims 18 and 19, claims 18 and 19 recite similar subject matter as claims 4 and 5 and therefore similarly recite subject atter not disclosed by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pasternak (US 2022/0245263 A1), see at least the abstract.
Nekkalapudi (US 2015/0007015 A1), see at least the abstract.
Kuki et al. (US 7225225 B2), see at least the abstract.
Skidgel (US 2005/0097159 A1), see at least claims 5, 11, 12, and 19.
Prajapat et al. (US 2005/0021626 A1), see at least paragraph 0027.
Zhu et al. (US 6654032 B1), see at least the abstract.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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.
10. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights