DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-18 are pending in Instant Application.
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are withdrawn.
Applicant elects Group I, claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16, in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I, II, and III possess unity of invention at least because the groups share a common data structure comprising a header parameter part and at least one list parameter part. Applicant further argues that Group I defines how the segmented data is parsed, Group II defines how the data is generated and transmitted, and Group III defines how content is obtained and displayed based on the parsed parameters. Applicant also argues that the combination requires the particulars of the subcombinations, that Groups II and III lack meaningful separate utility, and that examination of all three groups would not impose a serious search and examination burden. See Remarks, pages 8-11.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive.
Although Groups I, II, and III recite certain common data elements, the groups are directed to different operational and functional features of the disclosed system and claim different methods.
Group I is directed to receiving and parsing target data, including parsing a header parameter part to obtain a general parameter and a target object of a predefined list type and parsing at least one list parameter part to obtain a list parameter. Group I does not require generating and transmitting the target data according to the particular transmission sequence recited in Group II. Group I also does not require generating a content obtaining request and obtaining content according to the particular process recited in Group III.
Group II is directed to generating structured target data in response to a data obtaining request and transmitting the header parameter part to a requesting terminal before transmitting at least one list parameter part. Group II does not require the receiving and parsing operations of Group I or the content obtaining and rendering operations of Group III. The structured data transmitted by Group II may be used by a terminal employing a different parsing implementation, providing utility apart from the particular parsing method of Group I.
Group III is directed to obtaining parameters from received target data, including by parsing a header parameter part, and using those parameters to generate and send a content obtaining request. Group III then receives corresponding content data and renders it into a page for display. Group III does not require Group II’s sequential transmission of target data or Group I’s parsing of a received list parameter part to obtain a list parameter.
Additionally, examination of the groups would impose a serious search and examination burden. Group I requires searching header and protocol parsing, extraction of general and list parameters, and processing of segmented list type data, including subject matter classified in H04L 69/22. Group II requires searching server side data generation, client server communications, and sequential transmission of header and list parameter portions, including subject matter classified in G06F 2209/541. Group III requires searching content request generation, content retrieval, rendering and user interface execution arrangements, including subject matter classified in G06F 9/451.
Accordingly, the groups require different classifications, search concepts, and search strategies. A search directed to the parsing features of Group I would not reasonably be expected to locate all art pertinent to the transmission sequence of Group II or the content obtaining and display process of Group III. Therefore, examination of all three groups together would impose an additional search and examination burden.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/26/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202311403101.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0083167) in view of Rempell et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0107227).
As per claim 1, Carpenter teaches a method of data parsing, comprising:
receiving a header parameter part of target data (Carpenter: paragraph 0226; receiving HTTP responses from server 128 (containing, for example, HTTP headers along with search results and related data)), and parsing the header parameter part to obtain a general parameter (Carpenter: paragraph 0226; parsing these HTTP responses (for example, to extract and render this data on the screen of client 118, as well as to extract dynamic menu information from the HTTP headers)…paragraph 0282; Server 128 also informs client 118 that the "Incremental Search" capability is turned "on" (to provide interactive results as the user types characters into search query field 1104 in FIG. 11A). Finally, it indicates the length of the data that follows);
receiving at least one of list parameter parts of the target data, and parsing the received list parameter part to obtain a list parameter (Carpenter: paragraph 0226; receiving HTTP responses from server 128 (containing, for example, HTTP headers along with search results and related data), parsing these HTTP responses (for example, to extract and render this data on the screen of client 118, as well as to extract dynamic menu information from the HTTP headers)…paragraph 0286; Following these HTTP headers in Table 3 is the body of the transmitted message containing the list of data to be displayed by client 118 in results display area 1105 of window 1102 shown in FIG. 11A…The "name" to be displayed for each channel or category (or header) is deemed "field 1" with a space delimiter separating it from the "uri" in "field 2.");
wherein the list parameter is configured to render at least partial page content corresponding to the target data with the general parameter (Carpenter: paragraph 0226; receiving HTTP responses from server 128 (containing, for example, HTTP headers along with search results and related data), parsing these HTTP responses (for example, to extract and render this data on the screen of client 118, as well as to extract dynamic menu information from the HTTP headers)…paragraph 0282; Server 128 also informs client 118 that the "Incremental Search" capability is turned "on". Finally, it indicates the length of the data that follows…paragraph 0286; Following these HTTP headers in Table 3 is the body of the transmitted message containing the list of data to be displayed by client 118 in results display area 1105 of window 1102 shown in FIG. 11A).
However Carpenter does not explicitly disclose a target object of a predefined list type; and the list parameter, after being added to the target object.
However Rempell teaches:
a target object of a predefined list type (Rempell: paragraph 0107; Another response UI objects include: a multiple line text object, which may include a text area or a paragraph; a check box; an image; a video; a slide show (with either video or image slides, or both); choice objects; list objects; or control lists, which control all the subordinate output UI objects for that web component. Control list objects include, but are not limited to: list type or a choice type, each of which may include a search response list or RSS display list…paragraph 0108 and Table I; “List” – “Any List Type”; “ComplexList” – “Any List Type”; “SearchResponseList” – “Search Response List,” “Control List,” “Complex List,” and “Choice”; and “RSSList” – “RSS Display List,” “Control List,” and “Complex List”); and
wherein the list parameter, after being added to the target object (Rempell: paragraph 0150 panel 309e3 which includes dynamic binding of server-side data base values to attributes for the selected object…Operation 309e10…paragraph 0165; Operation 309e10, as a default operation, replaces the default attribute value with the real time value. In other embodiments this operation could be append, add, subtract, multiply or divide…paragraph 0076; Authoring platform 110 may include a "RSS display" list which permits a user to select RSS channels and feeds from an extensible list of available dynamic content. Meta data, such as titles, abstracts and Images can be revealed immediately by the user as they traverse this RSS display list).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Rempell with the teachings as in Carpenter. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to permit a user of the authoring platform to associate objects, such as objects for presenting on screen, with components of one or more web services; to define associations with web services as WebComponent Bindings; to associate certain objects for display that provide input or output to components of a web service; and to permit the inputs and outputs of XML web services to be bound to GUI components provided on screen, such that any other real time changes to these values in the referenced database will again be immediately displayed (Rempell: paragraphs 0068, 0069, and 0075).
As per claim 4, the modified Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the page content corresponding to the target data comprises at least one of a text, an image, an audio, or a video (Rempell: paragraph 0107; Response UI Objects may include, but are not limited to: single line text objects, which include: a text Field (including but not limited to a URL, audio URL, or purchase URL), a text button, a submit button, or a clear button. Another response UI objects include: a multiple line text object, which may include a text area or a paragraph; a check box; an image; a video; a slide show (with either video or image slides, or both); choice objects; list objects; or control lists, which control all the subordinate output UI objects for that web component).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 7, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Carpenter also teaches an electronic device (Carpenter: paragraph 0102 and fig. 2; communication device 200), comprising: one or more processors (Carpenter: paragraph 0102 and fig. 2; at least one processor 202); a storage device configured to store one or more programs (Carpenter: paragraph 0105 and fig. 2; program modules are stored on the storage device 208); the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to implement acts (Carpenter: paragraph 0105 mobile communications device 200 is adapted to execute computer program modules for providing functionality described herein).
Regarding claim 10, it is substantially similar to claim 4, and is rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 13, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Carpenter also teaches a non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a computer processor, are configured to implement acts (Carpenter: paragraph 0100; The functionality implemented by any of the elements can be provided from computer program products that are stored in tangible computer accessible storage mediums (e.g., RAM, hard disk, or optical/magnetic media)).
Regarding claim 16, it is substantially similar to claim 4, and is rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0083167), in view of Rempell et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0107227), and further in view of Jacobs et al. (WO 98/56024)
As per claim 2, the modified Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1.
However the modified Carpenter does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving at least one of the list parameter parts of the target data, and parsing the received list parameter part comprises at least one of the following: in response to failing to receive a current list parameter part, receiving a next list parameter part; in response to failing to parse a currently received list parameter part, parsing a next received list parameter part.
However Jacobs teaches:
wherein receiving at least one of the list parameter parts of the target data, and parsing the received list parameter part comprises at least one of the following: in response to failing to receive a current list parameter part, receiving a next list parameter part; in response to failing to parse a currently received list parameter part, parsing a next received list parameter part (Jacobs: page 32; When a failure occurs, it will attempt to look for the next good field and resume parsing while registering an error).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Jacobs with the teachings as in the modified Carpenter. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to allow the parser, upon encountering a failure, to look for the next good field and resume parsing while registering the error (Jacobs: page 32).
Regarding claim 8, it is substantially similar to claim 2, and is rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 14, it is substantially similar to claim 2, and is rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0083167), in view of Rempell et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0107227), view of Jacobs et al. (WO 98/56024), and further in Liu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0151881).
As per claim 3, the modified Carpenter teaches the method of claim 2.
However the modified Carpenter does not explicitly disclose in response to failing to receive or failing to parse a list parameter part, generating a data obtaining request based on the list parameter part that is failed to be received and/or failed to be parsed; sending the data obtaining request to a target server, to cause the target server to feed back new target data.
However Liu teaches:
in response to failing to receive or failing to parse a list parameter part, generating a data obtaining request based on the list parameter part that is failed to be received and/or failed to be parsed (Liu: paragraphs 0035-0036; Upon detecting reception errors, receiving proxy cache 25 requests retransmission of the data packet in error via reliable channel 43…The retransmission request preferably contains the location of the data portion in error); sending the data obtaining request to a target server, to cause the target server to feed back new target data (Liu: paragraphs 0035 and 0037; Server 21 retransmits data packets via reliable channel 43 in response to requests received from receiving proxy cache 25).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Liu with the teachings as in the modified Carpenter. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the reliability of data delivery by identifying and retransmitting data portions affected by reception errors over a reliable channel (Liu: paragraphs 0027, 0030, and 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 9, it is substantially similar to claim 3, and is rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 3, and is rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights