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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 08/19/2025.
Claims 15-34 are pending, claims 15, 21, and 27 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US 2019/0205103 A1) hereinafter Yadav in view of Sanches et al. (US 2018/0024731 A1) and further in view of Leeb et al. (US 2012/0151395 A1) hereinafter Leeb and further in view of Da Silva Baptista Russo et al. (US 2021/0232372 A1) hereinafter Da Silva and further in view of Gu et al. (CN-110427233-A) hereinafter Gu and further in view of Thomas (US 10,810,110 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Yadav discloses
A Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM) architecture-based application development method, applied to an application development device, the method comprising (Yadav [0004]):
parsing the UI description file, and identifying a binding relationship, in the UI description file, between a first UI control and the viewmodel object (Yadav [0006]-[0007] and [0033] discloses parsing a message which identifies the binding type associated with the binding request to implement the requested actions for the bindable property and/or method on the view model 270. Where Fig. 2 illustrates in Post Message 220 the Binding type as one of the parsed elements. Gu reference below explicitly teaches the UI description file);
updating a first UI of the first application when it is determined by listening that the first UI control changes or it is determined by listening that the instance of the viewmodel object changes (Yadav [0033] discloses two-way asynchronous binding of bindable properties and/or methods is provided between the UI and the View Model 270 through the binding bridge using the bridge controller 130 and its components. As changes take place to data in the view at the UI, the data model can be updated and as changes take place to data in the View Model 270, the view can be updated at the UI).
Yadav lacks explicitly
receiving a viewmodel object in background data that is in a first application and that is defined by a user, and a user interface (UI) description file that is of the first application and that is defined by the user, wherein the UI description file of the first application supports at least two interface description languages, and the at least two interface description languages comprise any at least two interface description languages of an extensible markup language (XML), a domain-specific language (DSL), or an embedded domain-specific language (EDSL);
wherein parsing the UI description file and identifying the binding relationship is further based on a difference between common UI data and device specific UI data corresponding to a specific type of a specific device on which the first application is executed;
setting listening for the first UI control, to update the viewmodel object;
setting an instance of the viewmodel object, and setting listening for the instance of the viewmodel object, to update the first UI control; and
Sanches teaches
wherein parsing the UI description file and identifying the binding relationship is further based on a difference between [common UI] data and [device specific UI] data (Sanches [0056] teaches parsing data and displayed using multiple panels. Sanches [0182]-[0183] teaches side-by-side difference comparison of code as illustrated in Figs. 24-25. Sanches);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Sanches to “wherein parsing the UI description file and identifying the binding relationship is further based on a difference between [common UI] data and [device specific UI] data” in order to efficiently and actively check for differences and act accordingly.
Leeb teaches
common UI data and device specific UI data corresponding to a specific type of a specific device on which the first application is executed (Leeb [0187] and [0219] teaches default view of controls and customized view of controls and the computing devices include different devices. Where the default view is similar to the common UI and the customized view is similar to the device specific UI)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Leeb to “common UI data and device specific UI data corresponding to a specific type of a specific device on which the first application is executed” in order to efficiently customize device views and increase user satisfaction.
Da Silva teaches
setting listening for the first UI control, to update the viewmodel object (Da Silva [0038] teaches controller objects to include listener objects configured to listen to state-notification. Where Yadav explicitly discloses updating the viewmodel object);
setting an instance of the viewmodel object, and setting listening for the instance of the viewmodel object, to update the first UI control (Da Silva [0039] teaches configuring/programming view to react to state changes via listener objects that listen to specific events. Da Silva [0010] teaches the view listens to the state store's “changed” event and re-renders in response. Where Yadav explicitly discloses updating the UI control); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Da Silva to “setting listening for the first UI control, to update the viewmodel object; setting an instance of the viewmodel object, and setting listening for the instance of the viewmodel object, to update the first UI control;” in order to efficiently and actively update data as it occurs and prevent delay through using listeners for actions/events.
Gu teaches
receiving a viewmodel object in background data that is in a first application and that is defined by a user (Gu [pg. 12, example three] teaches obtaining background data field corresponding to UI element to be configured), and a user interface (UI) description file that is of the first application and that is defined by the user (Gu [pg. 11, lines 18-19] teaches obtaining UI design file/UI description file and Gu [pg. 7, lines 4-7] teaches UI design file to be pre-configured UI interface configuration file by development staff to set layout information, form information, character display, button click information, etc.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Gu to “receiving a viewmodel object in background data that is in a first application and that is defined by a user, and a user interface (UI) description file that is of the first application and that is defined by the user;” in order to accurately receive application user interface data and efficiently perform different bindings and updates using the data.
Thomas teaches
wherein the UI description file of the first application supports at least two interface description languages, and the at least two interface description languages comprise any at least two interface description languages of an extensible markup language (XML), adomain-specific language (DSL), or an embedded domain-specific language (EDSL) (Thomas [col. 5, lines 52-57] teach “The behavior-driven development domain specific language (DSL) framework provides native, built-in support for JSON, HTTP, XML, etc. and allows mixing data elements of different types (e.g., data elements in the JSON format and other data elements in the XML format) in the same file (e.g., a part of the payload for testing Web services)”. Further, Thomas [col. 6, lines 54-64] teaches the DSL framework 102 supports one or more formats including XML and DSL)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Thomas to “wherein the UI description file of the first application supports at least two interface description languages, and the at least two interface description languages comprise any at least two interface description languages of an extensible markup language (XML), adomain-specific language (DSL), or an embedded domain-specific language (EDSL)” in order to improve compatibility across different languages and avoid wasted developer time learning additional languages.
Regarding claim 17, Yadav further discloses The method according to claim 15, wherein:
the viewmodel object comprises one or more members (Yadav [0070]-[0071] discloses device name member to be set from the data model/view model), and the first UI control comprises one or more elements(Yadav [0070]-[0071] discloses device name text box illustrated in Fig. 10 which may be updated from the UI as well); and
the binding relationship between the first UI control and the viewmodel object comprises:
a correspondence between a first element in the first UI control and a first member in the viewmodel object (Yadav [0070]-[0073] discloses device name member to be set from the data model/view model and device name text box illustrated in Fig. 10 may be updated from the UI as well. Where two-way binding data is synchronized with the data binding bridge and the model).
Regarding claim 18, The method according to claim 17, wherein updating the first UI of the first application when it is determined by listening that the first UI control changes or it is determined by listening that the instance changes comprises:
automatically updating content of the first element in the first UI when it is determined by listening that the user modifies content of the first member in the viewmodel object (No rejection required due to “or” language); or
automatically updating content of the first member in the viewmodel object when it is determined by listening that the user modifies content of the first element in the first UI (Yadav [0033] discloses two-way asynchronous binding of bindable properties and/or methods is provided between the UI and the View Model 270 through the binding bridge using the bridge controller 130 and its components. As changes take place to data in the view at the UI, the data model can be updated and as changes take place to data in the View Model 270, the view can be updated at the UI as illustrated in Fig. 4 element 416. Where relevant response data from the view model 270 to the data the data controller using JS custom event is automatically sent. Further, Yadav [0060] teaches the request may be initiated, for example, based on changes, selections or operations made through the UI by a user).
Regarding claim 20, Yadav teaches The method according to claim 15, wherein the development device comprises a parsing engine, configured to parse the UI description file (Yadav [0033] and Fig. 3 illustrate response parser 264 which parses response data. Where Gu explicitly taught UI description file), and
the combination lacks explicitly
the parsing engine comprises a syntactic logic definition of the binding relationship between the first UI control and the viewmodel object.
Gu further teaches
the parsing engine comprises a syntactic logic definition of the binding relationship between the first UI control and the viewmodel object (Gu [pg. 7, lines 8-16] teaches a template definition which requires binding between the background data field bound to UI design file pre-configured through invocation of an application programming interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Gu to “the parsing engine comprises a syntactic logic definition of the binding relationship between the first UI control and the viewmodel object” in order to accurately bind data between the model and the user interface and efficiently perform different updates through the binding.
Regarding claim 21, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 15. Thus claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 23, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 17. Thus claim 23 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 24, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 18. Thus claim 24 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 26, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 20. Thus claim 26 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 27, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations cited in claim 15. Thus claim 27 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 29, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations cited in claim 17. Thus claim 29 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 30, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations cited in claim 18. Thus claim 30 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 32, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations cited in claim 20. Thus claim 32 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 20 above.
Claim(s) 19, 25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US 2019/0205103 A1) hereinafter Yadav in view of Sanches et al. (US 2018/0024731 A1) and further in view of Leeb et al. (US 2012/0151395 A1) hereinafter Leeb and further in view of Da Silva Baptista Russo et al. (US 2021/0232372 A1) hereinafter Da Silva and further in view of Gu et al. (CN-110427233-A) hereinafter Gu and further in view of Thomas (US 10,810,110 B1) and further in view of Nandagopal (US 2019/0095225 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches The method according to claim 17,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the development device stores a registry, and the registry records a correspondence between an identifier of the first element of the first UI control and an identifier of the first member in the viewmodel object.
Nandagopal teaches
wherein the development device stores a registry, and the registry records a correspondence between an identifier of the first element of the first UI control and an identifier of the first member in the viewmodel object (Nandagopal [0034] and claim 12 teaches the common registry recording a name, an identifier and parent identifier information. Thus, correspondence between the identifier and parent identifier Where Fig. 2 illustrates client 104 storing common registry 204.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Nandagopal to “wherein the development device stores a registry, and the registry records a correspondence between an identifier of the first element of the first UI control and an identifier of the first member in the viewmodel object” in order to efficiently store data at a centralized location and easily integrate the registry with different components of the system.
Regarding claim 25, it’s directed to a device having similar limitations cited in claim 19. Thus claim 25 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 31, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations cited in claim 19. Thus claim 31 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US 2019/0205103 A1) hereinafter Yadav in view of Sanches et al. (US 2018/0024731 A1) and further in view of Leeb et al. (US 2012/0151395 A1) hereinafter Leeb and further in view of Da Silva Baptista Russo et al. (US 2021/0232372 A1) hereinafter Da Silva and further in view of Gu et al. (CN-110427233-A) hereinafter Gu and further in view of Thomas (US 10,810,110 B1) and further in view of Knudtson et al. (US 10,534,587 B1) hereinafter Knudtson.
Regarding claim 33, the combination teaches The method according to claim 15,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the first UI is further based on a common UI declared in the common UI data.
Knudtson teaches
wherein the first UI is further based on a common UI declared in the common UI data (Knudtson [col. 2, lines 56-58] discloses user interfaces defined by common design data illustrated in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Knudtson to “wherein the first UI is further based on a common UI declared in the common UI data” in order to devote “no time to updating style elements. As a result, managing style elements of applications will take less time and be more efficient” (Knudtson [col. 4, lines 25-28]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on an additional reference to cure the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references include Boyar et al. (US 9,483,240 B1) [col. 18, lines 56-63] discloses parsing layout file and maintain relationships of data binding expressions of the layout file and the model object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193