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 .
Priority
The present application has claimed priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 from Indian Patent Application No. IN202211039972 filed 7/12/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 3/20/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on 2/4/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 are maintained, but have been updated as necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/8/2023 were accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al (US20210352375A1; filed 9/10/2019) in view of Finnerty et al (US20140095654A1; 9/29/2012) and Kaw et al (US20190280943A1; filed 3/6/2018).
With regards to claim 1, Fishman et al discloses A method for simulating a customizable user interface (UI) for a… device, the method comprising: providing a… web application to at least one end user (Fishman et al, paragraph 78: “enable an operator console to be loaded on the operator system 225 (e.g., using a web browser, a native application, and/or other suitable program). The operator may user the operator console interface to build a design template for the user interface”);
receiving from the end user, via the… web application, a device type selection associated with at least one target device of a plurality of… devices… (Fishman et al, paragraph 82: “a number of design layouts for different user devices, specific users, and/or other use cases may be generated on the design template and implemented… using interface element 330, the operator may select different types of devices (e.g., a TV, a laptop or computer, a tablet, a smart phone, etc.)”);
receiving from the end user, via the… web application, a region designation associated with one or more region-specific or country-specific constraints based on the country or region in which the at least one target device operates (Fishman et al, paragraph 98: “Content may vary by region or operator, so the design template and/or the designs generated from the design template may be configured such that content is presented with respect to the constraints”);
receiving from the end user, via the… application and based on the device type selection and the region designation (see cited portions of paragraphs 82 and 98 above, the device type and constraints effect the interface layout and content), one or more device features, each device feature (Fishman et al, paragraph 60: “configure a user interface to include a specific design that may include one or more layouts, content items, or other design elements. The user interface that includes the design specified by an operator may be loaded on a user device (also referred to as a client device or computing device) and used by the user to navigate through and access the content items provided by the content management system”)…
generating, based on the device type selection, the region designation, and configuration data associated with at least one data display format, a simulated user interface (UI) layout corresponding to the device type selection…, the simulated UI layout comprising an arrangement of the one or more device features… and displaying to the end user, via the… web application, the simulated UI layout (Fishman et al, paragraph 7: “the operator console can also provide an option for an operator to preview one or more of the views of a user interface, which can be used to simulate how the user interface designs will be displayed (or rendered) on specific user devices”).
However, Fishman et al does not disclose a cloud-based application… via a mobile computing device… plurality of power control devices, the at least one target device capable of being monitored via the mobile device… monitoring at least one aspect of the at least one target device via the mobile device… user interface (UI) layout corresponding to the device type selection and to the region designation… wherein one or more operational parameters corresponding to the target device are observable and adjustable by the end user via the simulated UI layout.
Finnerty et al teaches a cloud-based application (Finnerty, paragraph 19: “Internet-enabled data interface device that is configured to report BAS data periodically to the cloud 106 for storage and subsequent accessibility.”)… via a mobile computing device… plurality of power control devices, the at least one target device capable of being monitored via the mobile device… monitoring at least one aspect of the at least one target device via the mobile device… (Finnerty, Fig. 3B: Power Usage and temperature are measured and displayed on the GUI; paragraph 6: “a system in which a user may obtain an overall graphic map view of a plurality of systems on a mobile computing device”) wherein one or more operational parameters corresponding to the target device are observable and adjustable by the end user via the simulated UI layout (Finnerty, paragraph 41: “The detailed data may also provide the user with an ability to command points. For example, lighting status 330 graphic or element may allow the user to select and change the status;” Fig. 3B has multiple parameters displayed and enables a user to select and change them).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al and Finnerty et al such that the data is stored in the cloud and the GUI monitors content related to a power control device, via a mobile device. This would have enabled the data to be accessed and monitored remotely over the internet (Finnerty et al, paragraph 4: “As a consequence, the system data may be accessed remotely over the Internet from the cloud.” Paragraph 4: “a data interface panel can provide sufficient control and monitoring functionality”).
Kaw et al teaches user interface (UI) layout corresponding to the device type selection and to the region designation (Kaw et al, paragraph 28: “Rules may specify which users may use all or part of a form. Rules may provide geographic restrictions on use of all or part of a form (e.g., preventing users in Country A from sending messages to users in Country B);” paragraph 8: “The dynamic user interface computing platform may generate a user interface from the user interface template based on, among other considerations, a device type of the dynamic user interface and the layout preferences”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, and Kaw et al such that the region of the UI adds constraints to the layout of the UI. This would have enabled the UI to be tailored to rules or laws from various countries (Kaw et al, paragraph 2: “Each user group and country, for example, may have different rules on how a login process is to be performed. For example, many systems in South Korea are required by law to use certain authentication methods which may only be performed by the INTERNET EXPLORER™ web browser”).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Fishman et al discloses storing… the simulated UI layout (Fishman et al, paragraph 94: “Once an operator is satisfied with a design template, the operator may save the design template and schedule the activation of the design template (and the designs generated from the design template) using the operator console interface 900 illustrated in FIG. 9”).
However, Fishman et al does not disclose yet Finnerty et al teaches cloud-based data storage accessible to the end user (Finnerty, paragraph 19: “Internet-enabled data interface device that is configured to report BAS data periodically to the cloud 106 for storage and subsequent accessibility.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, and Kaw et al such that the data is stored in the cloud. This would have enabled the data to be accessed and monitored remotely over the internet (Finnerty et al, paragraph 4: “As a consequence, the system data may be accessed remotely over the Internet from the cloud.”).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Fishman et al does not disclose wherein the target device includes at least one of a power supply controller, a power converter controller, a power rectifier controller, or a thermal monitoring controller.
However, Finnerty et al teaches wherein the target device includes at least one of a power supply controller, a power converter controller, a power rectifier controller, or a thermal monitoring controller (Finnerty, Fig. 3B: Power Usage and temperature are measured and displayed on the GUI).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, and Kaw et al such that the GUI monitors content related to a power control device. This would have enabled the data to be accessed and monitored remotely over the internet (Finnerty et al, paragraph 4: “As a consequence, the system data may be accessed remotely over the Internet from the cloud.” Paragraph 4: “a data interface panel can provide sufficient control and monitoring functionality”).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Fishman et al discloses receiving from the end user… at least one layout customization of the simulated UI layout; and revising the simulated UI layout based on the at least one received layout customization (Fishman et al, paragraph 65: “the operator console may also enable dynamic editing and/or control of aspects of a layout design of a user interface (e.g., by editing and/or controlling the content, the layout, and/or other elements of a layout design). In some cases, the operator console can provide a preview option for an operator to preview one or more of the views of a user interface.”).
However, Fishman et al does not disclose via the cloud-based web application
Finnerty et al teaches via the cloud-based web application (Finnerty, paragraph 19: “Internet-enabled data interface device that is configured to report BAS data periodically to the cloud 106 for storage and subsequent accessibility.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, and Kaw et al such that the data is stored in the cloud. This would have enabled the data to be accessed and monitored remotely over the internet (Finnerty et al, paragraph 4: “As a consequence, the system data may be accessed remotely over the Internet from the cloud.” Paragraph 4: “a data interface panel can provide sufficient control and monitoring functionality”).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 7, Fishman et al discloses receiving at least one request to rearrange the arrangement of the one or more device features (Fishman et al, paragraph 65: “the operator console may also enable dynamic editing and/or control of aspects of a layout design of a user interface (e.g., by editing and/or controlling the content, the layout, and/or other elements of a layout design).”).
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations to the combined limitations of claims 1 and 7, and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
With regards to claim 15, which depends on claim 10, Fishman et al does not disclose wherein the target device is a power supply controller.
However, Finnerty et al teaches wherein the target device is a power supply controller (Finnerty, Fig. 3B: Power Usage is measured and displayed on the GUI).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, and Kaw et al such that the data is stored in the cloud and the GUI monitors content related to a power control device. This would have enabled the data to be accessed and monitored remotely over the internet (Finnerty et al, paragraph 4: “As a consequence, the system data may be accessed remotely over the Internet from the cloud.” Paragraph 4: “a data interface panel can provide sufficient control and monitoring functionality”).
With regards to claim 18, which depends on claim 10, Fishman et al does not disclose wherein the target device is a thermal monitoring controller.
However, Finnerty et al teaches wherein the target device is a thermal monitoring controller (Finnerty, Fig. 3B: temperatures are measured and displayed on the GUI).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, and Kaw et al such that the data is stored in the cloud and the GUI monitors content related to a power control device. This would have enabled the data to be accessed and monitored remotely over the internet (Finnerty et al, paragraph 4: “As a consequence, the system data may be accessed remotely over the Internet from the cloud.” Paragraph 4: “a data interface panel can provide sufficient control and monitoring functionality”).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 8 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 3, 5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al in view of Finnerty et al and Kaw et al, and further in view of Kotzer (US20150020006A1; filed 2/26/2013).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Fishman et al discloses generating a UI build based on the simulated UI layout, the generated UI build configured for execution on the target device (Fishman et al, abstract: “generating, based on the one or more inputs, the template for the user interface, and generating, based on the template, a plurality of designs for the user interface, wherein each design in the plurality of designs is associated with an interface profile”).
However, Fishman et al does not disclose providing, via the cloud-based web application, the generated UI build for download by the end user.
Finnerty et al teaches via the cloud-based web application (Finnerty, paragraph 19: “Internet-enabled data interface device that is configured to report BAS data periodically to the cloud 106 for storage and subsequent accessibility.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, and Kaw et al such that the application is cloud-based. This would have enabled the data to be accessed and monitored remotely over the internet (Finnerty et al, paragraph 4: “As a consequence, the system data may be accessed remotely over the Internet from the cloud.”).
Kotzer teaches providing… the generated UI build for download by the end user (Kotzer, paragraph 29: “Some embodiments allow deployment of a same application both as a mobile web application to a variety of devices (from feature phones to tablets), and as a standalone downloadable application… Some embodiments provide generation of Quick Response codes for quick preview of the UI and/or access and download for the end users”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, Kaw et al, and Kotzer such that the UI could be downloaded by a user. This would have enabled end users to use the application (Kotzer, abstract: “The system is capable of creating applications to be loaded on the end-users' mobile device that enable using the UI, and allows browsing the UI from end-users' mobile device”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 3, the combination of Fishman, Finnerty, and Kaw et al does not disclose providing the generated UI build for download by the end user to at least one mobile communications device in wireless communication with the at least one target device.
Kotzer teaches providing the generated UI build for download by the end user to at least one mobile communications device in wireless communication with the at least one target device (Kotzer, paragraph 29: “Some embodiments allow deployment of a same application both as a mobile web application to a variety of devices (from feature phones to tablets), and as a standalone downloadable application… Some embodiments provide generation of Quick Response codes for quick preview of the UI and/or access and download for the end users”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, Kaw et al, and Kotzer such that the UI could be downloaded by a user wirelessly on a mobile device. This would have enabled end users to use the application (Kotzer, abstract: “The system is capable of creating applications to be loaded on the end-users' mobile device that enable using the UI, and allows browsing the UI from end-users' mobile device”).
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al in view of Finnerty et al, Kaw et al, and Kotzer, and further in view of Gupta et al (US20200028848A1; filed 8/11/2017).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 3, the combination of Fishman, Finnerty, and Kaw et al does not disclose generating at least one containerized application based on the simulated UI layout.
Kotzer teaches generating at least one… application based on the simulated UI layout (Kotzer, paragraph 29: “Some embodiments allow deployment of a same application both as a mobile web application to a variety of devices (from feature phones to tablets), and as a standalone downloadable application… Some embodiments provide generation of Quick Response codes for quick preview of the UI and/or access and download for the end users”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, Kaw et al, and Kotzer such that the standalone UI could be downloaded by a user. This would have enabled end users to use the application (Kotzer, abstract: “The system is capable of creating applications to be loaded on the end-users' mobile device that enable using the UI, and allows browsing the UI from end-users' mobile device”).
Gupta et al discloses at least one containerized application (Gupta et al, paragraph 4: “these applications can be implemented in or as VMs, and/or in or as web services, and/or in or as executable containers as a containerized applications (CAs)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, Kaw et al, Kotzer, and Gupta et al such that the applications are implemented as containerized applications. This would have enabled the applications to function without reliance on a specific hardware environment (Gupta et al, paragraph 4: “Containerized applications can be configured to implement a particular function or set of functions without reliance on a fully-configured hardware and/or software platform. For example, a CA might be defined to perform some simple operation over some given inputs and then produce an output in a predefined format. The CAs can also provide a certain level of secure isolation from other components in the distributed virtualization system. In some cases, the CAs might implement a web server within the executable container image to facilitate access to the CA as a web service or as a microservice.’).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al in view of Finnerty et al and Kaw et al, and further in view of Vakil et al (US20210216190A1; filed 1/15/2020).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 7, Fishman et al discloses receiving from the end user at least one… element for incorporation into the simulated UI layout (Fishman et al, paragraph 65: “the operator console may also enable dynamic control of the content, layout, and other elements of the design”).
However, Fishman et al, Finnerty et al and Kaw et al do not disclose branding element.
Vakil et al teaches branding element (Vakil et al, paragraph 78: ““Advanced Content Branding” toggle 444;” paragraph 83: “FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate where mobile option selector 464 is set to “Use Default branding.”” Paragraph 84: “FIGS. 7A and 7B also illustrate where mobile option selector 464 is changed from “Use Default branding” to “Same as Navigation Bar” as in FIGS. 6A-C.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman, Finnerty, Kaw, and Vakil such that the user can edit branding elements in the UI. This would have enabled the UI to support a specific branding (Vakil et al, paragraph 3: “Consistency between all of the different formats is particularly important for white-labelled applications that need to appear to support a tenant's branding.”).
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 9 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al in view of Finnerty et al and Kaw et al, and further in view of Pai et al (US 20060217905 A1; filed 5/25/2005).
With regards to claim 16, which depends on claim 10, Fishman, Finnerty, and Kaw et al do not disclose wherein the target device is a power converter controller.
However, Pai et al teaches wherein the target device is a power converter controller (Pai et al, Abstract: "The control module receives and processes the operating signals from the power converter, and then sends those processed signals to a display in a numerical value form”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, Kaw et al, and Pai et al such that the monitored target devices include a power converter controller. This would have allowed a user to monitor and control over a converter in a system (Pai et al, abstract: “The power supply can be applied in a computer, an adapter, or other electronic products, which is convenient for users to know the operating status of the power converter.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al in view of Finnerty et al and Kaw et al, and further in view of Iavergne et al (US7181517B1; filed 6/2/2000).
With regards to claim 17, which depends on claim 10, Fishman, Finnerty, and Kaw et al do not disclose wherein the target device is a power rectifier controller.
However, Iavergne et al teaches wherein the target device is a power rectifier controller (Iavergne et al, column 5, lines 18-22: “connectivity is provided between the user interface manager and software upgrade module 118… rectifier monitor and control module 124;” column 6, lines 13-16: “Typically the dynamic text is tied to real-time values measured by one of the monitor and control modules (e.g. modules 116 120, 122 and 124)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Fishman et al, Finnerty et al, Kaw et al, and Iavergne et al such that the monitored target devices include a power rectifier controller. This would have allowed a user to monitor and control over a rectifier in a system (Iavergne et al, abstract: “provides local user interface control over the system by allowing the user through a local display screen and touch pad to read from and write to the database”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/4/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and the dependent claims, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues (1a) that Fishman fails to teach receiving either a device type selection or a device feature associated with a target device capable of being monitored by a mobile device. Examiner agrees that Fishman does not explicitly teach selecting a target device “capable of being monitored by a mobile device,” but instead examiner argues that the combination of Fishman and Finnerty teach the relevant limitations. Finnerty teaches monitoring via a UI on the mobile device (Finnerty, paragraph 6, see rejection to claim 1 above). Thus the combination of Fishman and Finnerty teaches the selection of a device “capable of being monitored by a mobile device.” Applicant also argues (1b) that Kaw fails to teach at least a simulated UI layout based on the device type selection and the region designation. Examiner disagrees with this argument, because, as cited previously, Kaw teaches geographic differences to the forms, and also teaches basing the user interface on the device type (Kaw et al, paragraph 8: “The dynamic user interface computing platform may generate a user interface from the user interface template based on, among other considerations, a device type of the dynamic user interface and the layout preferences”). Applicant also argues (2) that there is no motivation for combining Fishman with either Finnerty or Kaw. Regarding Finnerty, examiner disagrees and maintains that while there is no “need” for cloud-based data storage, the combination with Finnerty still provides for an improvement by enabling the remote access to system data. And regarding Kaw, examiner argues that both Fishman and Kaw disclose UI generating systems, and the region-based solution of Kaw could be an improvement to Fishman since Fishman’s UI could include similar region-based issues as described in Kaw. Thus the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached on 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2173
/STEPHEN S HONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights