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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 08/15/2022 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following Abstract idea limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
A system for a headless user interface architecture associated with an application, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: receive, from a user device, a request to access information associated with the application, wherein the request includes user device data indicating one or more characteristics associated with a particular use of the user device; provide, as input to a machine learning model, the user device data, wherein the machine learning model is trained based on historical data associated with historical usage of the application by one or more of the user device or other user devices; receive, as an output from the machine learning model, a target environment, of a plurality of target environments, associated with the user device; identify a target user interface of a plurality of user interfaces associated with the information associated with the application, wherein the target user interface corresponds to the target environment; and transmit, to the user device, user interface data corresponding to the target user interface.
More specifically, a person can evaluate a plurality of different data (interface data), and make a judgment based on the evaluation, of a particular target user interface that is associated with information associated with the application (that corresponds to the target environment).
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the additional elements of :
“A system for a headless user interface architecture associated with an application, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories” : …, these additional element(s) merely apply the judicial exception to be implemented using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea.
“receive, from a user device, a request to access information associated with the application, wherein the request includes user device data indicating one or more characteristics associated with a particular use of the user device; provide, as input to a machine learning model, the user device data, wherein the machine learning model is trained based on historical data associated with historical usage of the application by one or more of the user device or other user devices; … receive, as an output from the machine learning model, a target environment, of a plurality of target environments, associated with the user device; … transmit, to the user device, user interface data corresponding to the target user interface”: these additional elements add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (Data Gathering) and in this case data gathering of a request from a user device, data gathering to provide data to an entity (the machine learning model), data gathering to receive target environment output from an entity (generally links the judicial exception to the area of the machine learning model and also interpreted to generally ‘apply’ the judicial exception using instructions to implement the abstract idea the model is recited at high level of generality), data gathering to transmit user interface data.
The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate into a judicial exception into a practical application
STEP 2B Analysis
With regards to the additional elements of :
“A system for a headless user interface architecture associated with an application, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories” and “receive, from a user device, a request to access information associated with the application, wherein the request includes user device data indicating one or more characteristics associated with a particular use of the user device; provide, as input to a machine learning model, the user device data, wherein the machine learning model is trained based on historical data associated with historical usage of the application by one or more of the user device or other user devices; … receive, as an output from the machine learning model, a target environment, of a plurality of target environments, associated with the user device; … transmit, to the user device, user interface data corresponding to the target user interface” – these additional elements have been explained in Prong two above to encompass either ‘applying’ the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea, including insignificant extra solution activity (Data Gathering), or generally ‘applying’ a machine learning model using instructions to implement the abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 2 analysis:
This claim recites limitation for “re-train the machine learning model based on feedback received …”. The retraining is recited at a high level of generality and references the receiving of feedback as part of the retraining. Receiving data (such as the feedback) has been explained in the rejection of claim 1 as mere data gathering (insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 analysis:
This claim further defines the characteristics data associated with the received request of claim 1. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, received data (the request with associated characteristic data) is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 4 analysis:
The claim further defines the target environment data being received. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, received data is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 5 analysis:
This claim further defines the characteristics data associated with the received request of claim 1. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, received data (the request with associated characteristic data) is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6 and 7 analysis:
The claim further defines the target environment data being received. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, received data (the request with associated characteristic data) is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 8 analysis:
The claim recites “the application is a web browser”. This additional element merely recites the application in a high level of generality and interpreted to encompass instructions (application) to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 analysis:
With regards to claim 9, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claim 10 analysis:
With regards to claim 10, it further recites:
“determining, based on the change in the one or more characteristics, an updated target environment of the plurality of target environments; identifying an updated target user interface of the plurality of target user interfaces, corresponding to the updated target environment” – for which are interpreted to encompass performance of the limitations in the human mind (mental process ).
“receiving from the user device, updated user device data …” and “transmitting , to the user device, the updated target user interface”, for which these additional elements are interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and also these additional elements are insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 11 analysis:
With regards to claim 11, it further defines “the plurality of target environments …” being received. Received data is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 12 analysis:
With regards to claim 12, it further defines “the one or more characteristics” that were received. Received data (the request with associated characteristic data) is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 13 analysis:
With regards to claim 13, it further defines “.. the target environment …” being received. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, received data (the request with associated characteristic data) is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 14 analysis:
With regards to claim 14, it further defines “the one or more characteristics” that were received. Received data (the request with associated characteristic data) is interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 15 and 16 analysis:
With regards to claims 15 and 16, it further defines “.. the target environment …” being received. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, received data (the request with associated characteristic data) is interpreted to encompass data gathering, for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 17 analysis:
With regards to claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
Dependent claim 18 analysis:
With regards to claim 18, it recites “: transmit, to the system, updated user device data indicating a change in the one or more characteristics, wherein the change in the one or more characteristics is associated with an updated target environment of the plurality of target environments; receive, from the system, an updated target user interface corresponding to the updated target environment”, these additional elements are interpreted to encompass data gathering (Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity), for which the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception. The claim further recites “ display the updated target user interface on the display of the user device”. This additional element encompasses adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (see Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The courts have identified this additional element as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 20 analysis:
With regards to claim 20, the claim further limits “the plurality of target environments include …” and as explained in its corresponding independent claim the plurality of target environment data is received, and thus this claim’s additional element merely encompasses the type of data received (data gathering). Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra solution activity and the courts have identified these additional elements as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception
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)(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, 3-5, 8-13, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al (US Patent: 12282862, issued: Apr. 22, 2025, filed: Feb. 4, 2021).
With regards to claim 1, Ma et al teaches a system for a headless user interface architecture associated with an application, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (column 7, lines 7-47: a system implementing a memory, and processor(s) is implemented), configured to:
receive, from a user device, a request to access information associated with the application, wherein the request includes user device data indicating one or more characteristics associated with a particular use of the user device (column 8, lines 10-40, column 9, lines 59-67, column 10, lines 1-27, column 11, lines 1-10 and 35-45: usage data obtained indicate usage characteristics associated with how a user uses a device and this usage data is sent /transmitted to be received by a consumer/server for processing);
provide, as input to a machine learning model, the user device data, wherein the machine learning model is trained based on historical data associated with historical usage of the application by one or more of the user device or other user devices (column 12, lines 12-17, column 13, lines 20-42: the usage data is provided to a machine learning system/model (which has been trained using historical usage data of user(s));
receive, as an output from the machine learning model, a target environment, of a plurality of target environments, associated with the user device; identify a target user interface of a plurality of user interfaces associated with the information associated with the application, wherein the target user interface corresponds to the target environment (column 13, lines 55-67, column 14, lines 1-17, column 15, lines 9-35: user interface options of a plurality of user interface options are selected and also configured to a target environment specific to the user (such as in a bike riding environment , in a car environment, and also in particular application environment (such as XR)); and
transmit, to the user device, user interface data corresponding to the target user interface (column 13, lines 55-67, column 14, lines 1-17, column 15, lines 9-35: the user interface data is communicated to the user’s device for rendering/display in the user’s interface).
With regards to claim 3. The system of claim 1, Ma et al teaches wherein the one or more characteristics include a global variable associated with a standard web view (column 7, lines 62-67, column 8, lines 1-10: a user interface can be from a browser (web view), and usage data such as a mouse ‘variable’ data type that tracks mouse movement and click(s)).
With regards to claim 4. The system of claim 1 Ma et al wherein the target environment is a standard web view environment, and wherein the target user interface is a standard web view user interface (column 7, lines 62-67, column 8, lines 1-10, column 23, lines 1-13: the target environment could be a web view store environment with a web store user interface).
With regards to claim 5. The system of claim 1, Ma et al teaches wherein the one or more characteristics include: a global variable associated with one or more of a virtual reality environment or an augmented reality environment, and a screen orientation associated with a display screen of the user device (column 23, lines 30-49: an augmented reality user interaction ‘variable’ is implemented to reference user interaction/engagement).
With regards to claim 8. The system of claim 1, Ma et al teaches wherein the application is a web browser (column 11, lines 15-35, column 21, lines 50-57: the application includes a web browser displaying a website interface).
With regards to claim 9, Ma et al teaches a method for a headless user interface architecture of an application, comprising: receiving, by a system having one or more processors and from a user device, user device data indicating one or more characteristics associated with a particular use of the user device; determining, by the system and based on the one or more characteristics, a target environment, of a plurality of target environments, associated with the particular use of the user device; identifying, by the system, a target user interface, of a plurality of target user interfaces associated with the application, wherein the target user interface corresponds to the target environment; and transmitting, by the system and to the user device, user interface data indicating the target user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The method of claim 9, Ma et al teaches further comprising: receiving, from the user device, updated user device data indicating a change in the one or more characteristics associated with the particular use of the user device (column 12, lines 15-62, column 13, lines 42-67: updated user data is received to recognize a change in user intentions); determining, based on the change in the one or more characteristics, an updated target environment of the plurality of target environments (column 12, lines 15-62, column 13, lines 42-67, column 16, lines 1-62: based on the change , and updated target environment specific to change context can be identified such as an environment that includes a mobile phone interface or an environment that includes an augmented reality interface); identifying an updated target user interface of the plurality of target user interfaces, corresponding to the updated target environment (column 12, lines 15-62, column 13, lines 42-67, column 16, lines 1-62: an updated target interface is implemented corresponding to the updated target environment and environment context); and transmitting, to the user device, the updated target user interface (column 13, lines 55-67, column 14, lines 1-17, column 15, lines 9-35: the user interface data is communicated to the user’s device for rendering in the user’s interface).
With regards to claim 11. The method of claim 9, Ma et al teaches wherein the plurality of target environments include one or more of a standard web view environment, a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a voice-based environment (column 7, lines 62-67, column 8, lines 1-10, column 23, lines 1-13: the target environment could be a web view store environment with a web store user interface).
With regards to claim 12. The method of claim 9, Ma et al teaches wherein the one or more characteristics include a global variable associated with a standard web view (column 7, lines 62-67, column 8, lines 1-10: a user interface can be from a browser (web view), and usage data such as a mouse ‘variable’ data type that tracks mouse movement and click(s)).
With regards to claim 13. The method of claim 9, Ma et al teaches wherein the target environment is a standard web view environment, and wherein the target user interface is a standard web view user interface (column 7, lines 62-67, column 8, lines 1-10, column 23, lines 1-13: the target environment could be a web view store environment with a web store user interface).
With regards to claim 17. Ma et al teaches a user device comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: transmit, to a system, a request to access information associated with an application, wherein the request includes user device data indicating one or more characteristics associated with the user device, and wherein the one or more characteristics correspond to a target environment, of a plurality of target environments, associated with a particular use of the user device; receive, from the system, a target user interface, of a plurality of target user interfaces associated with the application, wherein the target user interface corresponds to the target environment; and displaying the target user interface on a display of the user device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The user device of claim 17, Ma et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the system, updated user device data indicating a change in the one or more characteristics, wherein the change in the one or more characteristics is associated with an updated target environment of the plurality of target environments; receive, from the system, an updated target user interface corresponding to the updated target environment; and display the updated target user interface on the display of the user device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. The user device of claim 17, Ma et al teaches wherein the plurality of target environments include one or more of a standard web view environment, a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a voice-based environment, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and the 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US Patent: 12282862, issued: Apr. 22, 2025, filed: Feb. 4, 2021) in view of Baer et al (US Application: US 2018/0357148, published: Dec. 13, 2018, filed: Jun. 9, 2017 ).
With regards to claim 2. The system of claim 1, Ma et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: re-train the machine learning model based on feedback received from the user device (column 24, lines 1-37: feedback is collected from the user device to determine /assess performance of the provided interface output),
However Ma et al does not expressly teach … wherein the feedback includes a change request for a different user interface, of the plurality of user interfaces .
Yet Baer et al teaches … wherein the feedback includes a change request for a different user interface, of the plurality of user interfaces (paragraph 0047: a user can request to change a layout interface preference and provides feedback to the learning model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ma et al’s ability to implement a machine learning model to learn user preferences and optimize target interface output based upon learning/usage data, such that the model would have also received interface change data as among the usage data, as taught by Baer et al. The combination would have allowed Ma et al to have understood what action a user is taking in a software application and the context around the action is valuable for diagnosing problems and making improvement to the application (Baer et al, paragraph 0012).
Claim(s) 6 , 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US Patent: 12282862, issued: Apr. 22, 2025, filed: Feb. 4, 2021) in view of Cheng et al (WO 2018/033079, published: Feb 22, 2018, pages: 1-15 ).
With regards to claim 6. The system of claim 5, Ma et al teaches wherein the target environment is the virtual reality environment … , and wherein the target user interface is a virtual reality user interface (column 8, lines 21-39, column 27, lines 50-57: the target environment can encompass virtual reality).
However Ma et al does not expressly teach … is the virtual reality environment if the screen orientation is a landscape orientation, …
Yet Cheng et al teaches … is the virtual reality environment if the screen orientation is a landscape orientation, … (Abstract: when screen orientation is in landscape orientation, this context is identified as a target virtual reality environment mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ma et al’s ability to identify a target interface output based upon contextual feature/attribute/variable assessment, such that the context data/attribute/variable would have included detection that a display orientation has been switched to landscape mode as an intent for virtual reality implementation, as taught by Cheng et al. The combination would have allowed Ma et al to have efficiently adapted a mobile device to detect and support virtual reality interface(s).
With regards to claim 14. The method of claim 9, Ma et al teaches wherein the one or more characteristics include: a global variable associated with one or more of a virtual reality environment or an augmented reality environment (column 7, lines 62-67, column 8, lines 1-10, column 23, lines 1-13 and 30-49: virtual reality and/or augmented reality user interaction data (‘variable’) is implemented) …
Additionally the combination of Ma et al and Cheng et al teaches … and a screen orientation associated with a display screen of the user device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6 (Ma et al’s ability to identify a target interface output based upon contextual feature/attribute/variable assessment, was modified with Cheng et al’s ability for the context data/attribute/variable to have further included detection that a display orientation has been switched to landscape mode), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The method of claim 14, the combination of Ma et al and Cheng et al teaches wherein the target environment is the virtual reality environment if the screen orientation is a landscape orientation, and wherein the target user interface is a virtual reality user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US Patent: 12282862, issued: Apr. 22, 2025, filed: Feb. 4, 2021) in view of Martin (US Patent Application: 2013/0132846, published: May 23, 2013, filed: Nov. 16, 2012).
With regards to claim 7. The system of claim 5, Ma et al teaches wherein the target environment is the augmented reality environment …, and wherein the target user interface is an augmented reality user interface (column 8, lines 21-39, column 23, lines 30-49: the target environment includes augmented reality).
However Ma et al does not expressly teach … is the augmented reality environment if the screen orientation is a portrait orientation ..
Yet Martin teaches … is the augmented reality environment if the screen orientation is a portrait orientation .. (paragraph 0058: an augmented reality environment is identified as a target environment when the context screen orientation is tilted to a vertical portrait orientation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ma et al’s ability to identify a target interface output based upon contextual analysis, such that the context data would have included detection that a display has been switched to portrait orientation as an intent for augmented reality implementation, as taught by Martin. The combination would have allowed Ma et al to have efficiently adapted a mobile device to detect and support augmented reality interface(s).
With regards to claim 16. The method of claim 14, the combination of Ma et al and Martin teaches wherein the target environment is the augmented reality environment if the screen orientation is a portrait orientation, and wherein the target user interface is an augmented reality user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US Patent: 12282862, issued: Apr. 22, 2025, filed: Feb. 4, 2021) in view of Kukreja et al (US Patent: 11134078, issued: Sep. 28, 2021, filed: Jul. 10, 2019).
With regards to claim 19. The user device of claim 17, Ma et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the system, a change request for a different user interface, of the plurality of target user interfaces, …transmitting the target user interface, wherein the different user interface corresponds to a different target environment; receive, from the system, the different user interface; and display the different user interface on the display of the user device (column 13, lines 55-67, column 14, lines 1-17, column 15, lines 9-35: user interface options of a plurality of user interface options are selected, transmitted, and presented based upon feedback/response of user’s target environment (such as in a bike riding environment , in a car environment, and also in particular application environment (such as XR)).
However Ma et al does not expressly teach transmit … a change request … within a time threshold of transmitting the target user interface.
Yet Kukreja et al teaches … a change request … within a time threshold of transmitting the target [information] (Abstract, column 8, lines 10-22: a request/change in activity is detected within a threshold time out threshold of prior information presentation ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ma et al’s ability to send a user interface change to the user device, such that the change for additional presentation of information/resource (and it’s corresponding logical request) would have been conditional to user activity being within an acceptable time as taught by Kukreja et al. The combination would have allowed Ma et al to have optimized a user’s ability to request/access resource/information/applications in a secure manner such that secure access is implemented with respect to user specific activity and reducing inconvenience of reauthentication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Curic et al (US Patent: 10846106): This application teaches real time interface classification in an application.
Barrett et al (US Application: US 20210216334): This reference teaches training a learning system to classify interfaces.
Vaidyanath et al (US Application: US 2021/0011593): This reference teaches rendering application based on real time usage and accessibility data.
Almecija et al (US Application: US 2018/0365025): This reference teaches adapting user interface based upon user historical usage.
Gupta et al (US Patent: 10254945): This application teaches contextual state based user interface format adaptation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights