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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2026, 03/25/2026 and 04/02/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection on 11/26/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (Wilson), US Patent No. US 11,275,754 B2, in view of Levitt et al. (Levitt), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0255842 A1, and further in view of Kumar et al. (Kumar), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0068743A1.
As to independent claim 1, Wilson discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
updating a status of a configuration file to non-validated, the configuration file pertaining to a configuration package corresponding to an interactive electronic document (col. 5, lines 8-41: defining various assumptions (configuration files), which may pre-define a location and/or layout for particular objects and/or data to be arranged on the interfaces displayed by the display devices, and the assumptions (configuration files) may be updated; the assumptions may comprise a number of constraints define various views (interactive electronic document) for application interface; col. 6, lines 1-9: the constraints imposed by the assumptions (configuration files) may be configured to avoid situations where the user defines data models and/or instructions that are not supported by the database, e.g., invalid operations, improperly declared objects, invalid input, etc., and the constraints imposed by the assumptions may ensure that the database is functional (e.g., ensure that a schema for the database is valid); col. 6, lines 11-67 and Figure 2: the apps 110a-110n (configuration packages) may be data structures for applications developed using the low-code and/or no-code implementation, and each of the apps comprises a number of associated decks 120a-120b (configuration files), wherein the apps (configuration packages) may provide a logical grouping of related decks 120a-120n (configuration files), the decks may be data objects and may comprise the data model; col. 21, lines 1-16 and Figure 15: the drag and drop data input interface may provide an easy-to-use and/or intuitive interface for creating the logic structure 680, and when performing the drag and drop operation to add one of the logic blocks 664a-664n to the logic structure 680, if either the beginning edge 670 or the ending edge 674 does not fit into the location that the user perform the drop, the data input interface 206 may reject and/or prevent the particular logic block from being drop, e.g., because the logic would create an invalid data schema; col. 22, line 64 – col. 23, line 35 and Figure 17: generating drag and drop low-code/no-code interface, displaying pre-defined logic block options based on user input (at this time, the interface has not validated yet), user selects logic block, drags block to data model and drops block on data model, and if the dropped logic block does not fit previous blocks of data model, then data schema would not be valid and preventing the selected block to be added to data model, then directing the user back to the displayed pre-define logic block options based on the user input for selection again);
causing presentation of a listing of second configuration files including the configuration file, wherein each one of the second configuration files is categorized as non- validated and pertains to the configuration package (Figure 15 and col. 18, lines 3-58: the data input interface 206 may be generated in response to the computer readable instructions, the information stored in the database 102 and/or the assumptions 104 (configuration files), for example, the data input interface may enable a drag and drop, no code implementation, and may be generated in response to the constraints defined by the assumptions such as the data input interface may be configured to enable a suer to extend the functionality of the app without knowledge of coding syntax and may be configured to provide various pre-defined logic constructs or blocks that may be arranged to enable a user to build functions within the constraints defined by the assumptions to ensure the database schema is valid. Section 652 in Figure 15 displays a list of various logic type categories (a listing of second configuration files), and a selection of a logic category may affect what is displayed on the logic block selection section 654 in Figure 15, and these logic blocks shown on section 654 are not validated yet);
receiving input data indicative of selection of the configuration file (col. 18, lines 59 – col. 19, line 4: the selected logic category 662 may be “text” and the available logic blocks 664a-664n may correspond to available text logic blocks);
causing an update of the configuration file, resulting in an updated configuration file (col. 18, lines 59 – col. 19, line 4: the selected logic category 662 may be “text” and the available logic blocks 664a-664n may correspond to available text logic blocks are updated according to the selection of category 662);
applying a validation test to the updated configuration file, the validation test being specific to a type of the configuration file (col. 21, lines 1-32: when performing the drag and drop operation to add one of the log blocks to the logic structure, if either the either the beginning edge or the ending edge does not fit into the location that the user performs the drop, the data input interface may reject and/or prevent the particular logic block from being dropped because the logic would create an invalid data schema; col. 22, line 64 – col. 23, line 35 and Figure 17: if the dropped logic block does fit the previous blocks of the data model);
determining, based on application of the validation test, that the updated configuration file is validated (col. 21, lines 26-32: to ensure the data schema is valid, the shape of each of the selected logic blocks may fit together; col. 23, lines 24-35: check to see if the dropped logic block does fit the previous blocks of the data model based on the beginning edges and the ending edges); and
adding the validated updated configuration file to the configuration package (col. 23, lines 24-35: add pre-defined logic corresponding to selected block to data model and update the interface with new block added to previous blocks of data model).
Wilson discloses in the Abstract that the assumptions (configuration files) may provide constraints for the input, which may ensure the schema is valid. Wilson further discloses the input constraints data may apply the constraints defined by the assumptions to the data that may be input, and the input constraints data may prevent invalid data from being submitted (col. 8, lines 33-44). Wilson further discloses defining a plurality of assumptions and providing a data input mode configured to receive user input (col. 1, lines 42-61). Wilson further discloses the assumptions may take the data input and arrange the data in a pre-configured format (invalid or non-validated). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that Wilson discloses “updating a status of a configuration file to non-validated, the configuration file pertaining to a configuration package corresponding to an interactive electronic document”.
To support Examiner’s interpretation, Levitt discloses a computer-implemented low-code development platform including a user interface and having access to a library of step macros configured for user configuration and interconnection via the user interface to generate executable code, each step macro includes a step configuration generator and an execution code generator, wherein the step configuration generator is configured to generate a step configuration file based on user-configurable data points configurable via the user interface (Abstract). Levitt further discloses the user interface may provide functionality for editing the step configuration file such as to allow a user to make a change to the values and save them (paragraphs [0078]-[0079]). Levitt further discloses the configuration code generator may be configured to receive an edited step configuration and convert it into code as a step configuration file (paragraph [0096]). Levitt further discloses values are edited in the user interface and checked against the validation rules form the step configuration requirements component before being passed to the configuration code generator where the configuration values are used to produce the step configuration file (paragraph [0115]).
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 system of Wilson to incorporate “updating a status of a configuration file to non-validated, the configuration file pertaining to a configuration package corresponding to an interactive electronic document”, as taught by Levitt for the purpose of allowing the user to manipulate/modify the configuration file through the use of a low-code development platform.
Wilson and Levitt, however do not disclose wherein the configuration package comprises a definition configuration file, a translation configuration file, and a layout configuration file having a dependency structure, and wherein the layout configuration file depends from the translation configuration file and the translation configuration file depends from the definition configuration file.
In the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses methods, systems, and apparatus for generating and distributing interactive documents, an interactive document generation platform receives information that defines a series of interactive pages of an interactive document and generates a data package (configuration package) that includes metadata (definition configuration file), structured data (layout configuration file), and multimedia content (translation configuration file) for the interactive document (Abstract and paragraph [0004]). Kumar further discloses that providing the data package that includes metadata, structural data, and multimedia content for the interactive document to an interactive document distribution platform (paragraph [0003]).
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 system of Wilson and Levitt, to include wherein the configuration package comprises a definition configuration file, a translation configuration file, and a layout configuration file having a dependency structure, and wherein the layout configuration file depends from the translation configuration file and the translation configuration file depends from the definition configuration file, as taught by Kumar. Kumar suggests that providing the data package that includes metadata, structural data, and multimedia content for the interactive document to an interactive document distribution platform, which can be configured for adapting the interactive document for presentation by a plurality of different types of computing devices, receiving a request for the interactive document for a computing device of a particular type, and providing to the computing device a version of the interactive document that is adapted for presentation by the particular type of the computing device.
As to dependent claim 2, Wilson discloses categorizing the validated updated configuration file as a validated configuration file (Figure 17 and col. 23, lines 24-35).
As to dependent claim 3, Wilson discloses wherein the updating comprises:
determining that the configuration file has changed (col. 18, line 49 – col. 19, line 4);
identifying the configuration package containing the configuration file (Figure 2, col. 6, lines 11-67, and col. 25, lines 20-29);
determining that the second configuration files depend on the configuration file (col. 18, lines 59 – col. 19, line 4); and
categorizing the second configuration files as non-validated configuration files (Figure 15 and col. 18, lines 3-58).
As to dependent claim 4, Wilson discloses wherein the configuration file configures a definition aspect of the interactive electronic document (col. 5, lines 8-41), and
wherein the applying the validation test comprises: executing at least one of a no-code script or a low-code script (col. 21, lines 16-32); and
automatically determining, in response to the executing, satisfactory implementation of one or more of a logic statement or a logic expression (col. 21, lines 16-32).
As to dependent claim 5, Wilson discloses wherein each one of the no-code script and the low-code script emulates end-user responses to one or more prompt defined in the configuration file (col. 23, lines 36-48).
As to dependent claim 8, Wilson discloses wherein the configuration file configures a layout aspect of the interactive electronic document, and wherein the applying the validation test comprises: applying one or more geometrical conditions defining satisfactory visualization output for the configuration file; and determining that one or more user-interface elements rendered at a display device satisfy at least one of the one or more geometrical conditions (col. 9, lines 45-64).
Claims (9-13, 16) and (17-21, 24) are device and medium claims that contain similar limitations of claims 1-5, 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 9-13, 16, 17-21 and 24 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6-7, 14-15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson, Levitt and Kumar as applied to claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-21 and 24 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (Wu), US Patent Application Publication No. US. 2023/0267285.
As to dependent claim 6, Wilson, however, does not disclose wherein the configuration file configures a translation aspect of the interactive electronic document, and wherein the applying the validation test comprises applying a machine-learned model to determine validity or invalidity of a configuration file.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses apparatuses, systems, and techniques to translate a text string using one or more neural networks to determine a length of a translated text string before a text string is to be translated (Abstract). Wu further discloses a neural network model performs language translation, and wherein the neural network model comprises syntactic and/or semantic large-scale pre-trained language models, pre-ordering and/or post-ordering algorithms and models, and/or autoregressive and/or non-autoregressive algorithm (paragraph [0063]). Wu further discloses developers may develop, publish, and store applications (e.g., as containers (configurations)) for performing image processing and/or inferencing on supplied data, wherein an application that is developed may be tested locally with an SDK (software development kit) which may support at least some of services (paragraph [0583]). Wu further discloses completed and validated applications or containers may be stored in a container registry and associated machine learning models may be stored in model registry (paragraph [0584]).
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 system of Wilson to include wherein the configuration file configures a translation aspect of the interactive electronic document, and wherein the applying the validation test comprises applying a machine-learned model to determine validity or invalidity of a configuration file, as taught by Wu. Wu suggest that using neural network model to determine a number of words in a final result (such as an amount of words in a translated sentence) to generate a more accurate translation as it reduces a number of possible outputs, which is important because one word in one language can be translated to many different words in another language (Wu, paragraph [0063]).
As to dependent claim 7, Wilson, however, does not disclose wherein the machine-learned model is a generative adversarial neural network (GANN), and the applying the machine-learned model comprises: determining, using the GANN, a translation of text from a first natural language to a second natural language, wherein the text corresponds to a natural language statement in the first natural language, and wherein the natural language statement is part of a prompt within the interactive electronic document; and determining, using the GANN, that an error is present in a translation of the text by determining a reverse translation, from the second natural language to the first natural language, of the determined translation of the text, and comparing the reverse translation to the natural language statement.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses apparatuses, systems, and techniques to translate a text string using one or more neural networks to determine a length of a translated text string before a text string is to be translated (Abstract). Wu further discloses a neural network model performs language translation, and wherein the neural network model comprises syntactic and/or semantic large-scale pre-trained language models, pre-ordering and/or post-ordering algorithms and models, and/or autoregressive and/or non-autoregressive algorithm (paragraph [0063]). Wu further discloses a neural network model obtains text string from one or more systems, such as an audio, visual, and/or text processing system, converts audio, video, and/or text into text string and provides text string to neural network model (paragraph [0069]). Wu further discloses neural network model obtains and translates text string in a first language into translated text string in a second language (paragraphs [0069], [0073]). Wu further discloses the machine learning model can be a generative adversarial neural network (paragraph [0594]). Wu further discloses untrained neural network is trained using supervised learning, wherein training dataset includes an input paired with a desired output for an input, or where training dataset includes input having a known output and an output of neural network is manually graded (paragraph [0159]). Wu further discloses untrained neural network is trained in a supervised manner and processes inputs from training dataset and compares resulting outputs against a set of expected or desired output, and errors are then propagated back through untrained neural network (paragraph [0159]).
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 system of Wilson to include wherein the machine-learned model is a generative adversarial neural network (GAAN), and the applying the machine-learned model comprises, determining, using the GANN, a translation of text from a first natural language to a second natural language, wherein the text corresponds to a natural language statement in the first natural language, and wherein the natural language statement is part of a prompt within the interactive electronic document; and determining, using the GANN, that an error is present in a translation of the text by determining a reverse translation, from the second natural language to the first natural language, of the determined translation of the text, and comparing the reverse translation to the natural language statement, as taught by Wu. Wu suggest that using neural network model to determine a number of words in a final result (such as an amount of words in a translated sentence) to generate a more accurate translation as it reduces a number of possible outputs, which is important because one word in one language can be translated to many different words in another language (Wu, paragraph [0063]).
Claims 14-15 and 22-23 are device and medium claims, respectively. Claims 14-15 and 22-23 contain similar limitations of claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 14-15 and 22-23 are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed fully persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as explained here below, necessitated by Applicant’s substantial amendment (i.e., wherein the configuration package comprises a definition configuration file, a translation configuration file, and a layout configuration file having a dependency structure, and wherein the layout configuration file depends from the translation configuration file and the translation configuration file depends from the definition configuration file) to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof. Please see the rejection above with newly cited prior art Kumar.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37CFR 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 extension fee 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 CHAU T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights