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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 29, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al (Korean Patent Document KR 2015-0006672, “Machine Translation of the Specification Provided”) in view of Pitts et al (U.S. Patent 6,085,234).
Regarding claim 1, Seong et al shows an electronic device (Figure 2) including:
a memory storing at least one instruction (Page 8, paragraph 5, the method may be executed on hardware devices specifically configured to store and execute program instructions);
a cache memory storing cache data (210);
at least one processor (230) configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory; and
a communication interface (Figure 2 shows the electronic device interacting with the server 201), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
receive a request to fetch network data provided by a server (Page 4, paragraph 10, “a user accesses a site or page using a web browser) ;
determine an expected network response performance indicating a time expected for fetching the network data from the server, based on a first elapsed time from a time when the network data is requested from the server to a time when the network data is obtained from the server (Page 5, paragraphs 1-3),
determine an expected cache response performance indicating a time expected for retrieving cache data corresponding to the network data from the cache memory, based on a second elapsed time when the cache data is requested from the cache memory to a time when the cache data is obtained from the cache memory (Page 5, paragraphs 1-3),
compare the expected network response performance with the expected cache response performance (Page 5, paragraphs 1 and 2),
based on a result of the comparing, obtain the network data by requesting the network data from the server via the communication interface or obtain the cache data by requesting the cache data from the cache memory (Page 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, the cache or server is used based on the shorter loading time), and
process the obtained network data or the obtained cache data (Page 5, paragraphs 1 and 2).
Seong does not teach that the first elapsed time is based on an average of a plurality of accumulated past first elapsed times. Pitts teaches that it is known in the art to use average response times when evaluating the performance of a service request (See column 17, “Note”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Seong use an average of first elapsed times as taught by Pitts. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have Seong use an average of first elapsed times since using an average response time is a more reliable and comprehensive measure of service than using a single event.
Regarding claim 3, Seong teaches:
based on the first elapsed time being less than or equal to the second elapsed time, obtain the network data from the server by requesting the network data from the server via the communication interface (Page 5, paragraphs 1-3); and
based on the first elapsed being greater than the second elapsed time, obtain the cache data from the cache memory by requesting the cache data from the cache memory (Page 5, paragraphs 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Seong does not teach determining the second elapsed time based on at least one of: an average of a plurality of accumulated past second elapsed times, a total number of data requests accumulated in a queue of the cache memory, or a priority of a cache data request for the cache data among the data requests accumulated in the queue of the cache memory. Pitts teaches that it is known in the art to use average response times when evaluating the performance of a service request (See above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Seong use an average of second elapsed times as taught by Pitts. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have Seong use an average of second elapsed times since using an average response time is a more reliable and comprehensive measure of service than using a single event.
Regarding claim 6, Seong teaches:
determine whether the cache data stored in the cache memory is valid (Page 7, paragraph 6); and
based on determining that the cache data is invalid, obtain the network data from the server by requesting the network data from the server via the communication interface (Page 7, paragraph 9).
Seong in view of Pitts does not mention comparing the expected network response performance with the expected cache response performance based on determining that the cache data is valid. Seong does teach comparing the expected network response performance with the expected cache response performance as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Seong in view of Pitts with the performance comparing step after determining that the cache data is valid. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide Seong in view of Pitts with the performance comparing step after determining that the cache data is valid so that the faster of the loading of the cache memory or the server is used when both sources are known to have valid data, which is the main idea of Seong.
Regarding claim 8, Seong teaches:
wherein the cache data has been previously obtained from the server and stored in the cache memory (See Figure 2 and page 4, paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 9, Seong in view of Pitts does not specify that the cache memory is a non-volatile memory. Official Notice is taken that non-volatile cache memory is old and well known in the art. Non-volatile cache memory is ideal for storing permanent data or information that must not be lost. Examples of non-volatile memory include flash memory, read-only memory (ROM), and hard disk drives. The choice between volatile and non-volatile cache memory depends on the specific needs of a system. If data retention and reliability are more important, non-volatile cache memory is the preferred option. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use non-volatile memory for the cache memory. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use non-volatile memory for the cache memory for data retention and reliability benefits.
Regrading claim 10, Seong does not specify that the data is for executing an application. Official Notice is taken that web applications are old and well known in the art. Applicant acknowledges they are common in paragraph [0003] of the specification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the electronic device of Seong in view of Pitts with web application data. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the electronic device of Seong in view of Pitts with web application data so that Seong could execute web applications.
Regarding claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19, these are the method claims corresponding to device claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 above, and are rejected by Seong in view of Pitts for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Seong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for performing, on a computer, the operating method of claim 11 (Page 8, paragraph 5).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al in view of Pitts et al as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Ruellan et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0026483)
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Seong teaches determining whether cache data is valid as set forth above, but does not specify that it is based on a validity period of the cache data. Ruellan teaches in paragraph [0022] that it is known to have a validity period for a resource, i.e., the period during which the resource stored in a cache memory can be used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cache memory of Seong in view of Pitts with a validity period as taught by Ruellan. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the cache memory with a validity period since Ruellan teaches that it is a known method of determining how long a resource stored in cache memory can be considered as valid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 11, 2026 have been considered but are deemed to be moot because Applicant’s claim amendments are addressed by the reference of Pitts et al as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KORZUCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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.
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
