DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 10/30/2025 for 17239271. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendments, the objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current rejection of record under Unter Ecker in response to the newly amended limitations, including at least determining parameters defining a selected component as disclosed in Unter Ecker [para 0048, 0051-0053].
Additionally, in response to Applicant's assertion that the Office Action mailed 07/03/2025 acknowledges "that Unter Ecker does not teach one or more user interface aspects that are applicable to a selected user interface artifacts" [pg. 9:1], it is noted the newly amended limitation "one or more of the user interface aspects that are applicable to the selected one of the plurality of user interface artifacts" recited in claim 1 substantially similar to a now-cancelled limitation of claim 5 was previously mapped to the identified ones of the one or more of the user interface aspects as disclosed by Unter Ecker and cited in combination with examining the ingested corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts as disclosed by Slone in the Office Action [pg. 8, bullet 27].
Claim 1 remains rejected.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 4 and 5 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current rejection of record of parent claim 1.
Applicant presents no separate arguments for dependent claims 4 over those presented above for claim 1. Examiner responds to each argument as above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually (that "Slone includes no examples of a data source that can be properly interpreted as part of a user interface that defines how the user interface behaves" [pg. 11:2]), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the Office Action cites the combination of identified ones of the one or more of the user interface aspects as disclosed by Unter Ecker with examining the ingested corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts as disclosed by Slone to teach the amended limitations of claim 5. Claims 4 and 5 remain rejected.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 14-20 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Unter Ucker et al. (US 20160070813 A1).
As to claim 1, Unter Ucker discloses a method comprising:
executing a content management system executing on a computer processor [Fig. 12, para 0037, 0086-0087, system includes computer with processor executing dynamic application generation];
generating, by the content management system, a first user interface generated by the content management system and displayed to a user [para 0047-0048, 0057, 0088-0089, device generates application instance (read: first user interface) deployed on user end station display], wherein the first user interface includes a plurality of user interface artifacts which define how the first user interface behaves or is displayed [para 0038-0040, 0049, application instance generated from user interface definition file defining user interface components (read: artifacts) as visually represented in running application instance], and wherein the content management system has a plurality of user interface aspects developed by an aspect developer different from the user which define a plurality of modifications that may be made to the first user interface, each of which is capable of modifying at least one of the plurality of user interface artifacts to modify user interface behaviors as defined by a respective user interface aspect of the plurality of user interface aspects [para 0007-0008, 0038, device stores definition file including user interface parameters (read: aspect) changing user interface as defined by parameter value set for component behavior in user interface, note application developers (read: aspect developer) construct definition files accessed by end station user modifying component], wherein the at least one user interface artifact comprises a part of the user interface that defines how the first user interface behaves in response to a user interaction [para 0038, 0050-0053, 0055, user interface component affects behavior (read: part) of user interface displaying component parameter value based on user selection (read: interaction)];
receiving, by the content management system, a selection of a selected one of the plurality of user interface aspects and a selection of a selected one of the plurality of user interface artifacts by the user [para 0047-0049, 0051-0053, device receives user selection with user interface component of user interface components and receives user modification of parameter of set of parameters], wherein each user interface aspect in the plurality of user interface aspects comprises executable code for:
receiving, through the first user interface, information used for execution of the respective user interface aspect and describes user interface artifacts that the respective user interface aspect is capable of modifying [para 0038-0039, 0048-0049, 0051-0053, definition file includes instructions (read: code) communicating with application instance including editor receiving user selection (read: information) editing user interface parameter value associated with selected component]; and
identifying the one or more of the user interface aspects that are applicable to the selected one of the plurality of user interface artifacts [para 0048, 0051-0053, device determines set of parameters defining component selected by user]; and
modifying, at runtime, by the content management system, the first user interface by modifying or replacing code of the selected user interface artifact according to the selected user interface aspect to generate a modified version of the first user interface that is different from the first user interface, as defined by the selected user interface aspect [para 0047, 0054-0055, device updates running application instance by editing (read: modifying) component code in definition file reflecting user modification of parameter and regenerate currently running application updated (read: modified version) with edited definition file and changed parameter].
As to claim 2, Unter Ucker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying to the user, by the content management system subsequent to receiving the selection of the selected user interface artifact and prior to receiving the selection of the selected user interface aspect, a list of one or more of the plurality of user interface aspects which are applicable to the selected user interface artifact [para 0048, 0051-0053, device determines and displays set (read: list) of parameters defining (read: applicable to) component selected by user, where user modifies parameter of displayed parameters].
As to claim 3, Unter Ucker discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising ingesting, by the content management system, for each user interface aspect of the plurality of user interface aspects, a corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts that are modifiable by the user interface aspect [para 0050-0051, 0054-0055, 0065-0067, device triggers processing (read: ingest, note broadest reasonable interpretation of ingest includes taking in) application components affected by modified parameter].
As to claim 6, Unter Ucker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each user interface artifact of the plurality of user interface artifacts comprises corresponding code, wherein the content management system is adapted to include the selected user interface aspect in the code of the selected user interface artifact [para 0035, 0042, 0050-0051, definition file includes code defining each component and component parameters].
As to claim 7, Unter Ucker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the content management system at runtime for each of the plurality of user interface artifacts, that one of the plurality of user interface aspects has been selected to modify the user interface artifact, and executing code of the selected user interface aspect instead of corresponding code of the user interface artifact [para 0035, 0038, 0042-0045, generate live component in running application with code of edited component parameter value overriding (read: Instead of) code instantiated for component when user edits parameter value of selected component of components at runtime].
As to claim 8, Unter Ucker discloses a system [Fig. 12, para 0037, 0086-0087, system includes computer with processor executing dynamic application generation] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 9-10 and 13-14, Unter Ucker discloses the system of claim 8 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 2, 3, 6, and 7, respectively and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 15, Unter Ucker discloses a computer program product, the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructions [Fig. 12, para 0088, 0122, non-volatile memory included in device contains code executing dynamic application generation] for: performing limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 16-17 and 20, Unter Ucker discloses the system of claim 8 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 2, 3, and 7, respectively and are rejected under similar rationale.
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.
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 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unter Ucker as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Slone et al. (US 20070276689 A1).
As to claim 4, Unter Ucker discloses the method of claim 3.
However, Unter Ucker does not specifically disclose wherein for each user interface aspect of the plurality of user interface aspects, the corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts that are modifiable by the user interface aspect is contained in a section of the user interface aspect.
Slone discloses wherein for each user interface aspect of the plurality of user interface aspects, the corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts that are modifiable by the user interface aspect is contained in a section of the user interface aspect [para 0067, 0073, property view (read: section) displays control objects (read: user interface artifacts) bound to property (read: user interface aspect, note properties modify controls) used to modify binding between property and object].
Unter Ucker and Slone are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of application software development systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts as disclosed by Unter Ucker with containing the corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts in a section of the user interface aspect as disclosed by Slone with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Unter Ucker as described above to facilitate rapid development of workflow applications [Slone, para 0026].
As to claim 5, Unter Ucker discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising determining, by the content management system, the list of one or more of the plurality of user interface aspects which are applicable to the selected user interface artifact by … the ingested corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts that are modifiable by the user interface aspect [para 0050-0051, 0054-0055, 0065-0067, device triggers processing application components affected by modified parameter].
However, Unter Ucker does not specifically disclose examining the ingested corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts that are modifiable by the user interface aspect.
Slone discloses examining the ingested corresponding list of applicable user interface artifacts that are modifiable by the user interface aspect [para 0067, 0072-0073, database manages bindings between control objects bound to property, where property view displays objects bound to as identified by selected object].
Unter Ucker and Slone are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of application software development systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the list of one or more of the plurality of user interface aspects as disclosed by Unter Ucker with examining an ingested list of applicable user interface artifacts as disclosed by Slone with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Unter Ucker as described above to facilitate rapid development of workflow applications [Slone, para 0026].
As to claims 11 and 12, Unter Ucker and Slone, combined at least for the reasons above, discloses the system of claim 8 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 4 and 5, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 18 and 19, Unter Ucker and Slone, combined at least for the reasons above, discloses the computer program product of claim 15 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 4 and 5, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abaya et al. (US 20140229846 A1) generally discloses generating a user interface including elements and element properties.
Huber et al. (US 20170039038 A1) generally discloses generating a modified version of a live application upon modification of an application definition file.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172