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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims contain terms not defined in the applicant’s specification and as such require interpretation.
Logic: programming code and/or scripts (The applicant only mentions the term logic once in paragraph 87 where it is disclosed “using this property web page logic can know what is the width (in pixels) of the browser…”. The term “this” is referencing “JavaScript” that is used to access the “window.innerHeight property”. Paragraphs 18 and 45 indicate that the information provided to the user includes code such as JavaScript or other dynamic code for performing actions)
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-5 and 20 recite: “the method of claim 1”. However, claim one is a system claim and not a method claim. The examiner assumes this is a typographical error and that the applicant intended claims 2-5 and 20 to each recite “the system of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,210,708. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely contain limitations that recite terms that are synonymous in scope and/or introduce different limitations that are obvious variants of claims 1-27 in U.S. Patent 11,210,708.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely contain limitations that recite terms that are synonymous in scope and/or introduce different limitations that are obvious variants of claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent 12,307,489.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites:
a logic, wherein the logic is programmed to run within a web page downloaded to a browser and wherein the logic includes instructions for; and
receive a request for a web page from the browser and transmit the web page to the browser, wherein the web page comprises (a) an advertising content including the first image content, the second image content, the first textual content, and the second textual content, (b) the non-advertising content, and (c) the logic
First, as currently claimed, the second recited “a web page” does not have antecedent basis to the first recited “a web page”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the applicant is claiming two different web pages. One which includes the claimed logic programmed to run within it, and another which is requested by the browser.
Second, it is unclear which of the two web pages the two different claimed “the web page” the applicant is intending antecedent basis to exist.
It is likely that the applicant intends the claimed “a web page” which has “logic” “programmed to run within” it, is the only web page the applicant intends to claim. This would mean the applicant intended the second claimed “a web page” to recite “the webpage” and for each recitation of “the web page” to have antecedent basis to the single web page the applicant intended to claim.
However, there at least two other reasonable interpretation where two different web pages are intentionally being claimed.
First, the applicant may intend both of the claimed “the web page” to have antecedent basis to the first claimed a web page. In this interpretation, a request for a first web page is received from the browser and rather than transmitting the first web page as requested, the invention transmits a different web page, the different webpage comprising “(a) an advertising content including the first image content, the second image content, the first textual content, and the second textual content, (b) the non-advertising content, and (c) the logic”. This type of thing is common in the art using a redirect where the user does not actually end up at the requested web page.
Second, the applicant may intend the first recited “the web page” to have antecedent basis to the second recited “a web page” and the second recited “the web page” to have antecedent basis to the first recited “a web page”. In this embodiment the server is a traditional web server that merely receives a request for a web page from a browser and transmits said web page to the browser. However, the claims system comprises a different web page comprising (a) an advertising content including the first image content, the second image content, the first textual content, and the second textual content, (b) the non-advertising content, and (c) the logic, wherein the logic is programmed to run within the different web page should this web page every be downloaded to the browser. This interpretation is viable because there is no inherent reason why the web page requested and transmitted must be the different web page comprising the logic.
Given that there are at least three different ways to interpret the limitations of claim 1, as currently written, and that each of the interpretation would result in an invention with a different scope which operates in a different manner, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-20 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of analyzing the claims under 35 USC 101 and the application of prior art, the examiner is going to interpret the claims as if the applicant had intended to claim a single web page since this interpretation is entirely consistent to the applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 have not been rejected under 35 USC 101 because they positively reciting a specific arrangement of devices comprising: a graphical user interface (i.e., a webpage comprising logic: a logic, advertising content including two different images and two different textual content, and non-advertising content); and a server, wherein the graphical user interface is an improvement to traditional graphical user interfaces because the logic within the webpage is required to automatically execute when it is received by a browser to perform the specific claimed function. The server, in response to a request for the webpage (i.e., improved graphical user interface), transmits the webpage comprising: the graphical user interface (i.e., the logic), advertising content including two different images and two different textual content, and non-advertising content, which causes the browser to automatically perform the functions of the logic. This graphical user interface (i.e., a webpage comprising logic: a logic, advertising content including two different images and two different textual content, and non-advertising content) executing the specific logic in the manner claimed is an additional element that results in an improved graphical user interface operating in a manner different from traditional graphical user interfaces, thereby transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or is considered “significantly more” under Step 2b.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim Objections, the Double Patenting rejections, and the 35 USC 112b rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Gupta - 2009/0197581; Salesin - 2006/0111971; and Wade 2009/0171920 that discloses a system comprising:
a logic, wherein the logic is programmed to run within a web page downloaded to a browser and wherein the logic includes instructions for:
generating an embedded advertising framework in a viewport area of a window of the browser,
detecting a first characteristic of the viewport area at a first point in time,
identifying a first portion of the viewport area as being suitable to position the embedded advertising framework,
presenting a least one of a first image content or a second image content and at least one of a first textual content or a second textual content within the embedded advertising framework based on the characteristic when a non-advertising content is presented outside the first portion,
identifying which of the at least one of the first image content or the second image content and which of the at least one of the first textual content or the second textual content to present within the first portion based on the characteristic when the non-advertising content is presented outside the first portion,
detecting a second characteristic of the viewport area at a second point in time, wherein the second characteristic is different than the first characteristic,
dynamically and fluidly resizing or dynamically and fluidly reshaping the first portion in real-time based on the difference between the first characteristic and the second characteristic, such that the at least one of the first image content or the second image content and the at least one of the first textual content or the second textual content are responsively dynamically and fluidly resized or dynamically and fluidly reshaped while the non-advertising content is presented outside the first area; and
a server, wherein the server is programmed to:
receive a request for a web page from the browser and transmit the web page to the browser, wherein the web page comprises (a) an advertising content including the first image content, the second image content, the first textual content, and the second textual content, (b) the non-advertising content, and (c) the logic.
The examiner has also found prior art (see Marcotte, Fluid Grids, March 3, 2009, https://alistapart.com/article/fluidgrids/, pgs. 1-27 that discloses:
using an embedded framework to dynamically and fluidly resize or dynamically and fluidly reshape the multiple areas of a webpage in real-time based on the characteristic.
Therefore, each and every element of the claim is taught by the prior art. However, the examiner has determined that it would not be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine the Gupta, Salesin, Wade, and Marcotte references to arrive the claimed invention without using the applicant’s claims as a roadmap, thereby employing impermissible hindsight.
As such, claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim Objections, the Double Patenting rejections, and the 35 USC 112b rejections identified above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown (PGPUB: 2011/0231265) discloses adverting units comprising a plurality of components and dynamically scaling each of the components to fit within an advertising unit that is scaled to fit into different environments based on the size of the display area.
Uchida (PGPUB: 2010/0293602) discloses a web browser that includes the functionality of an RSS reader.
Lightner (How to set up dual monitors in Window 7, July 13, 2011, https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/how-to-set-up-dual-monitors-in-windows-7/, pgs. 1-4) which discloses that it is well known to extend the display screen across multiple monitors as mentioned in claim 11.
Grenager (US Patent Number: 10,332,157) which discloses that it is well known for the first area to overlap the second area as mentioned in claim 16.
Koningstein (PGPUB: US 2005/0096980) discloses that it is well known for an advertisement to be in the shape of a square, rectangular, or polygonal as mentioned in claim 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights