Response to RCE
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 06/06/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Independent claims are 1, 10, 16.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/06/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Application 16860817, filed 04/28/2020 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62860657, filed 06/12/2019.
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 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. US 20170262164 A1, (hereinafter Jain) in view of Watson et al. US 20040049574 A1, (hereinafter Watson) in view of Son et al. US 20130111516 A1, (hereinafter Son).
As to independent claim 1, Jain teaches:
A method for configuring layouts of a user interface for a plurality of clients, the method comprising, by a computing device:
receiving, from a first client, a first request (See Fig. 1A with [0053] – “A server 110 communicates with the device 102 to carry out the reconfiguration”, in other words the figure shows the server 110 receiving from a first client device 102a, a reconfiguration request comprising user input data 104 and user behavior data 106.) comprising a modification to a first user interface control of the user interface (First see [0056] – “identification of buttons or other controls a user interacted”, in other words the user interface of Fig. 1A contains user interface controls such as buttons. Then see [0057-0059] in response to the server receiving the user input data 104 and user behavior data 106 [i.e., receiving a first request], the user interface is reconfigured, in other words the user interface controls e.g. buttons are reconfigured [i.e., modified] along with the user interface. Thus, the first request comprising user input data 104 and user behavior data 106 is a request to the server for modifying the user interface and its contained user interface controls), and a first property of the first user interface control (See [0056] - “In some implementations, the user input data 104 indicates interaction with elements of the interface 102a, for example, text entered, identification of buttons or other controls a user interacted.”, in other words the reconfiguration request in Fig. 1A contains user input data 104 which can include property data of a user interface control such as its identification. Identification data of a user interface control is interpreted to be the claimed first property), wherein the first property specifies a type of identity (See [0056] and as explained above, the identification of buttons is included within the user input data 104).
modifying, based on the first request, an item within a self-describing data structure (See Figs. 1C and 1D for self-describing data structures such as Presentation Data 112a, location data 112b, and interaction data 112c. These data structures contain data about claimed items that correspond to the first user interface control, since [0078] mentions that location data 112b includes data such as object type information (e.g. radio buttons, lists, etc.). Radio buttons and lists are seen as first user interface controls, and the layout of the user interface which contains these user interface controls is being modified as mentioned below), wherein the self-describing data structure defines a dynamic layout of the user interface (See [0077] – “The presentation data 112a may include interface style guide details based on prior user-selected inputs, configurations, and/or selections. For example, the presentation data 112a may include font settings, object sizes (e.g., display areas, frames, or windows), background graphics, border designs, user-selected highlights, field entries, keyboard configurations, pointer configurations, audible pattern selections (e.g., ringtones), annunciations, voice recognition queries, and/or vibration settings.”, and also see [0020] – “In some implementations, adjusting the user interface includes adjusting a portion of the user interface so that the portion of the user interface changes in color, size, layout, formatting, font, media type, amount of content, or interactivity of content”, thus reconfiguration involves modifying a layout of the user interface), and the item corresponds to the first user interface control (As explained above with [0078], radio buttons and lists are items that correspond to user interface controls that are interactable by the user to perform specific control functions);
receiving, from a second client, a second request to view the user interface (First see [0047] which mentions an example where the user interface is a mobile application interface that gets downloaded from an app store. The paragraph’s disclosure is stating that there can be a second user with their client device sending a request to the app store to download and view the same above-mentioned user interface, but this user interface would be personalized for this second user based on their unique user input data 104 and user behavior data 106. Thus, multiple different requests can be received by the server 110 from many different client devices, for viewing a modified user interface that is personalized for the user), wherein the second request comprises a second property that specifies a type of user interface control belonging to the user interface (See Fig. 1A reconfiguration request contains user input data 104 and user behavior data 106, then further see [0076] – “The user input data 104 that the application 122 may provide to the application 122 may include, for example, presentation data 112a, location data 112b and interaction data 112c.”, and then see [0078] – “The location data 112b may include data indicating the location and presence of interface resources that are included within the interface 102a. For example, the location data 112b may include…object type information (e.g., radio buttons, lists, etc.)”. In other words, the reconfiguration request from a second client device comprises property data that specifies the object type [i.e., type of user interface control belonging to the user interface]);
determining, in accordance with the self-describing data structure, metadata that defines a tailored layout of the user interface (See Fig. 1A with [0053] the server 110 uses information in tables 114 [i.e., second metadata] to determine a defined second tailored layout for the user interface. See also Fig. 1D user data 150), wherein the tailored layout:
displays a second user interface control based on whether the second user interface control satisfies the second property (In regards to claimed “a second user interface control”, it is interpreted to be a radio button as disclosed in [0076] – “For example, the location data 112b may include…object type information (e.g., radio buttons, lists, etc.)”.
In regards to claimed “displays a second user interface control based on whether the second user interface control satisfies the second property”, this is interpreted to mean that Jain’s radio button is displayed in the tailored user interface if the client device is able to support the display of control objects that are of the type of “radio buttons”. See [0153] – “The application 410b may also store mobile user interface classes 412b that include objects to be used to a construct or reconstruct a reconfigured interface. For example, the dynamic user interface framework 414b may extract subsets of classes from the mobile user interface classes 412b once the display attributes for the reconfigured interface have been determined based on applying the data processing algorithms 416b to the personalized user data received from the server data sources 404b.”. In other words the application stores classes 412b of objects such as the radio button mentioned above to construct a tailored user interface.);
providing the metadata to the second client to cause the second client to render the tailored layout of the user interface (See Fig. 1C and 1D for the metadata, and see Fig. 1A with [0053] and [0062] for the server to provide data to render the user interface).”
Jain teaches user interface controls such as radio buttons as cited above, but Jain does not teach: wherein the first property specifies a type of identity associated with the first client;
wherein the tailored layout:
displays the first user interface control based on whether the second client satisfies the first property;
Watson teaches: wherein the first property specifies a type of identity associated with the first client (See Fig. 6 with [0093], the figure illustrates a device policy table that includes various types of client devices such as PC and TV. Then see [0145] – “Different versions of the data object are stored in a data structure which is hierarchical and such that different hierarchical levels correspond to different capabilities of remote user devices 2. The author of the content code 23 may define for each object the appropriate version to be utilized for each device type ID 45 by entering data in a in component policy table 37 as illustrated in FIG. 3.”, in other words each data object has first property data that specifies a type of identity of a first client device that the data object is intended to be utilized with. See also [0153] which gives an example of what [0145] mentions);
wherein the tailored layout:
displays the first user interface control based on whether the second client satisfies the first property (See [0153], a video clip object is displayed based on whether the type of client device corresponds to a Personal Computer. Video clip object is interpreted to be a first user interface control. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “user interface controls” includes anything on a graphical user interface that the user can interact with to cause a change to the user interface; a video clip, within a graphical user interface, is selectable by the user to perform video playback.
In regards to claimed “first client” and “second client”, they are interpreted as two different user devices that are accessing the same server. And as can be seen in Jain [0047] there is a mobile application server being accessed by multiple different client devices that are requesting a tailored user interface for their individual device);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmitted user input data 104 which contains object property data comprising identification information of selected objects contained within the tailored webpages of Fig. 1 taught by Jain to include property data included within objects that indicate a type of client device that the object is intended to be displayed for as taught by Watson. One would have been motivated for “a web server capable of responding with web page code tailored to meet the capabilities of the remote user device.” (See Watson [0001]), in other words the benefit is user interfaces that are tailored for the type of client device.
Jain as modified teaches the tailored layout as cited above but Jain as modified does not teach: wherein the tailored layout:
Displays a third user interface control based on a global level property and an identity of a user associated with the second client.
Son teaches: Displays a third user interface control based on a global level property and an identity of a user associated with the second client (Son teaches a method of providing a customized user interface, see Title. The method involves displaying contents (i.e., a third user interface control such as game content in [0020]) based on authenticating the user via identity information of a user, see Abstract.)
In regards to the claimed limitations, see [0044] which mentions providing user ID to authenticate the user for using a customized user interface, which contains the claimed displayed third user interface control. Thus, the display is based on the identity of a user of a client device.
In regards to claimed “based on a global level property”, see [0046] – “By way of example, based on the provided contents information, the user device determines the kind of IPTV service being used in a TV, and confirms whether there is IPTV service interface data corresponding to the determined kind of IPTV service in the user device.”, in other words the display of content is also based on a determination of the type of IPTV service. Thus, the global level property is interpreted to be the determined type of IPTV service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of providing a customized user interface as taught by Jain to include a method of customizing a user interface only when the user is authenticated as taught by Son. Motivation to do so would be for security, since this is a very well known benefit in the art.
As to dependent claim 2, Jain teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Jain further teaches: providing one or more graphical user interface controls on the user interface to enable entry of the modification (“For instance, the server 110 can receive (i) user input data 104 entered at the device 102 and (ii) user behavior data 106.” See [0053].).
As to dependent claim 3, Jain as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Jain further teaches: receiving, from the first client, a third request to view the user interface, wherein the third request includes a third property (First see Fig. 1A which as explained before above that the client device 102 sends a request containing data 104 and 106 to view a reconfigured user interface. Then see [0047] – “Over time, as a user's circumstances or preferences change, the mobile application and the associated server can detect these changes and respond accordingly.”, in other words the sent request can contain data that changes over time hence is a third request different from the first request and hence the third property different from the first property);
Determining, in accordance with the self-describing data structure, second metadata that defines a second tailored layout of the user interface, wherein the second tailored layout includes a third user interface control that is also included in the tailored layout for the second client (See Fig. 1E which illustrates the same object but with varying sizes and layout based on conditions/metadata. Each object listed is seen as a different user interface control, hence third); and
Providing the second metadata to the first client to cause the first client to render the second tailored layout of the user interface (See Fig. 1C and 1D for the metadata, and see Fig. 1A with [0053] and [0062] for the server to provide data to render the user interface).
As to dependent claim 4, Jain as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as cited above.
Jain further teaches: wherein the third property specifies globally including the third user interface control at a location in a section of the user interface (See Fig. 1E shows that a user interface can have the large object [i.e., UI element] in placed at e.g. top of the user interface. In regards to claimed “globally”, Examiner notes just this term alone is not sufficient for injecting any specific meaning to the rest of the other claim limitations.).
As to dependent claim 5, Jain as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Jain does not teach: wherein the type of identity comprises a type of user account associated with the first client and/or a type of the first client itself.
Watson further teaches: wherein the identity type defines a type of user account associated with the first client and/or a type of the first client (See [0145] and [0153] PC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmitted user input data 104 which contains object property data comprising identification information of selected objects contained within the tailored webpages of Fig. 1 taught by Jain to include property data included within objects that indicate a type of client device that the object is intended to be displayed for as taught by Watson. One would have been motivated to “a web server capable of responding with web page code tailored to meet the capabilities of the remote user device.” (See Watson [0001]), in other words the benefit is user interfaces that are tailored for the type of client device.
As to dependent claim 7, Jain as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Jain further teaches: wherein the metadata comprises an extensible markup language document (See Fig. 4A-4B with [0144] interfaces are constructed using HTML);
As to dependent claim 8, Jain as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Jain further teaches: wherein the second client, at runtime, renders the second user interface control within the user interface based on the metadata (See Fig. 4A-4B with [0144] interfaces are constructed using HTML. It is understood in the art that HTML is processed at runtime to generate a user interface and its elements).
As to dependent claim 9, Jain as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Jain further teaches: wherein the metadata is transmitted to the second client in a format that is specific to the second client (See Figs. 4A and 4B with [0144-0146]. The reconfigured user interface is either constructed using HTML or JSON, and requires the client device to be able to render HTML or JSON markup language.).
As to independent claim 10, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 11, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 2 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 12, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 3 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 13, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 4 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 14, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 5 as cited above.
As to independent claim 16, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 2 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 18, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 3 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 4 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 20, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 5 as cited above.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. US 20170262164 A1, (hereinafter Jain) in view of Watson et al. US 20040049574 A1, (hereinafter Watson) in view of Son et al. US 20130111516 A1, (hereinafter Son) in view of Son et al. US 20070271522 A1, (hereinafter Son2).
As to dependent claim 6, Jain as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Jain as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the first request further comprises an event and an event handler for the first user interface control, and the item in the self-describing data structure is modified based on the event and the event handler.
Son2 teaches: wherein the first request further comprises an event and an event handler for the first user interface control, and the item in the self-describing data structure is modified based on the event and the event handler (See Fig. 4 step S450 Monitor Event with [0072] monitoring for an event means it is an event handler for a UI entity.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jain to include event and event handlers for a UI element as taught by Son2. Motivation to do so would be for efficient technical implementation of Jain’s method since event handlers are well-known constructs in software programming and effective in checking and handling events that occur in a software program.
As to dependent claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 6 as cited above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments pertaining to the previous 103 rejections has been considered but are rendered moot in view of the new ground of rejection cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to DAVID V LUU at telephone number (571)270-0703.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171