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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claim
2. Applicant's amendment dated 03/16/2026 responding to the Office Action 01/14/2026 provided in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-11.
3. Claim 1 has been amended.
4. Claims 1-3 and 7-11are pending in the application, of which claim 1 in independent form and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
5. (A) Regarding art rejection: Applicants’ amendment necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection. Please see Garvey et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0320591 A1).
Examiner Notes
6. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below.
Claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 of the instant application is direct to system.
Step 2 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
(a) generate a context configuration module programmed to compose a user experience based on a user context and a registry of micro front-ends;
(b) generate a rendering module programmed to render one or more micro front-ends from the registry of micro front-ends into a framework defining operational conformance requirements to deliver the user experience with a first presentation, including to:
identify a change in the user context;
render at least one of the one or more micro front-ends in response to a change in the user context with a second presentation; and
provide a feedback prompt to an end user associated with the user context along with the second presentation at runtime to solicit input from the end user to evaluate the end user's experience regarding the second presentation.
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
The claim 1 recites the limitations of:
(a) generate a context configuration module programmed to compose a user experience based on a user context and a registry of micro front-ends;
Limitation (a) is limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “generate”/create can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “A system”, “at least one processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage”. The limitations of “A system”, “at least one processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitations (b) perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity and are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering and outputting data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying/rendering, updating, transmitting and storing data as well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims
Additionally, claim 2 recites “wherein the framework defines at least one of a message format, a time period for an action, and an operation message requirement as the operational conformance requirements” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 3 recites “wherein the user context comprises real-time data of user interaction with the user experience” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 7 recites “wherein each of the first presentation and the second presentation provide a same functionality” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of providing data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites “wherein each of the first presentation and the second presentation is selected from a group consisting of a tile, a button, a header element, a composite micro front-end, a sidebar, a chat element, and a hyperlink” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of specifying data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 9 recites “wherein at least one of the one or more micro front- ends is removed from the user experience based on a lack of or reduction in user data associated with interaction with the at least one of the one or more micro front-ends” perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 10 recites “wherein the context configuration module is further programmed to: present the registry of micro front-ends to the user associated with the user context; receive a selection from the user; and compose the user experience based on the selection” perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 11 recites “wherein the context configuration module is further programmed to: prompt the user associated with the user context to make a selection between at least two micro front-ends; and compose the user experience based on the selection” perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0330021 A1 – art of record --herein after Dominguez) in view of Garvey et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0320591 A1 – provisional application 63/502,351 filed on 05/15/2023 -- herein after Garvey).
Regarding claim 1.
Dominguez discloses
A system (a system – See Fig. 6), comprising:
at least one processor (processor 604 – See Fig. 6); and
non-transitory computer-readable storage storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (main memory 608 – See Fig. 6), cause the system to:
generate a context configuration module programmed to compose a user experience based on a user context (maintains a globalized state for the contextual UI component and all the sub-components thereof (e.g., MFEs, reusable UI components, nested contextual UI components) and this state is persisted across contexts. Thus, state can remain persistent throughout the entire user experience and be shared among different context-specific UI components – See paragraph [0031]) and a registry of micro front-ends (composing a first view of the contextual UI component by inserting each one of the UI components identified by the first UI component registry in a corresponding slot within the first UI component framework; and rendering the first view of the contextual UI component to a window of the web browser – See paragraph [0005]);
generate a rendering module programmed to render one or more micro front-ends from the registry of micro front-ends into a framework defining operational conformance requirements to deliver the user experience with a first presentation (Composing a first view of the contextual UI component by inserting each one of the UI components identified by the first UI component registry in a corresponding slot within a first UI component framework; and rendering the first view of the contextual UI component to a window of the web browser – See paragraph [0008]. A first set of features to one type of user (e.g., a user determined to be pre-approved for a loan, a trusted user, an administrator) and a second set of features to another type of user (e.g., a user determined not to be pre-approved for a loan, an untrusted user, a non-administrator) – See paragraph [0028]. Contextual UI component 128 comprises a “unified calculator” that enables a user to obtain cost estimates and potentially secure a loan for purchasing an automobile, wherein the layout and UI components that make up the unified calculator vary depending on whether the user is prequalified for a loan or not – See paragraph [0055]) including to
identify a change in the user context (remove or rearrange features of a UI component of a web application at runtime in response to a particular context or change of context. For example, it may be desired to provide a first set of features to a user determined to be in a first location and a second set of features to a user determined to be in second location – See paragraph [0028]);
render at least one of the one or more micro front-ends in response to a change in the user context with a second presentation (the set of UI components to be included within the framework, or the arrangement (e.g., order) of UI components within the slots of the framework – See paragraph [0041]. To add, remove and/or rearrange features of contextual UI component 128 with respect to a given context – See paragraph [0050]. Examiner respectfully notes that arrangement UI component after remove/rearrange is as a second presentation); and
Dominguez does not disclose
provide a feedback prompt to an end user associated with the user context along with the second presentation at runtime to solicit input from the end user to evaluate the end user’s experience regarding the second presentation.
Garvey discloses
provide a feedback prompt to an end user associated with the user context (track and collect metrics and/or other information about user interactions with product 102. Example metrics may include how long it takes a user to first interact with a user interface element – See paragraph [0029], the user is prompted to provide input as to how the user experience design should be versioned – See paragraph [0049]) along with the second presentation at runtime to solicit input from the end user to evaluate the end user’s experience regarding the second presentation (Evaluating the performance of various facets of one or more user experiences with product 102. For example, a UX test may comprise a survey or questionnaire. Users of a website or a mobile application may be prompted to complete the UX test to evaluate their experience with product 102, which may be the website or application itself or a separate product – See paragraph [0028]. Context updates also provide feedback to the system, which may be used to make runtime adjustments to the system to optimize results – See paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Garvey’s teaching into Dominguez’s invention because incorporating Garvey’s teaching would enhance Dominguez to enable to users of a website or a mobile application prompted to complete the UX test to evaluate users’ experience with product as suggested by Gravey (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, the system of claim 1,
Dominguez discloses
wherein the framework defines at least one of a message format, a time period for an action, and an operation message requirement as the operational conformance requirements (file formats, and schemas in computer system 600 may be derived from standards including but not limited to JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Extensible Markup Language (XML), Yet Another Markup Language (YAML), Extensible Hypertext Markup Language (XHTML), Wireless Markup Language (WML), MessagePack, XML User Interface Language (XUL)– See paragraphs [0028-0029]. A first set of features to one type of user (e.g., a user determined to be pre-approved for a loan, a trusted user, an administrator) and a second set of features to another type of user (e.g., a user determined not to be pre-approved for a loan, an untrusted user, a non-administrator) – See paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, the system of claim 1,
Dominguez discloses
wherein each of the first presentation and the second presentation provide a same functionality (Unified calculator shell 206 performs substantially the same functions of state manager 122 and context determiner 114 as described above in reference to FIG. 1. With respect to state management, unified calculator shell 206 utilizes a REDUX store 214 to maintain a globalized state for the unified calculator and the UI components included therein. Upon execution, unified calculator shell 206 receives an input contract 208 from web application frontend 108 that it uses to generate an initial state. Unified calculator shell 206 may also receive (e.g., from web application frontend 108 or some other source) certain configuration parameters 210 that may be used to customize one or more aspects of the unified calculator – See paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 10, the system of claim 1,
Dominguez discloses
wherein the context configuration module is further programmed to:
present the registry of micro front-ends to the user associated with the user context (client computer system 102 comprises a web browser 104 and a display 124. Web browser 104 is a software application that is executed by client computer system 102 to enable a user thereof to access resources (e.g., web pages, files) via the World Wide Web. For example, Web browser 104 may be configured to enable a user to navigate (e.g., by specifying a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or interacting with a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) link) to a web page on the World Wide Web – See paragraphs [0036-0038]);
receive a selection from the user (the user can view the content and in some cases interact therewith – See paragraphs [0036-0038]); and
compose the user experience based on the selection (view composition service 224 then composes a prequalified user view of the unified calculator – See paragraphs [0060-0063]).
9. Claim(s) 3, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez and Garvey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Permkishna et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0303094 A1 – art of record -- herein after Permkishna)
Regarding claim 3, the system of claim 1,
Premkrishna discloses
wherein the user context comprises real-time data of user interaction with the user experience (a predetermined or standard function selection (e.g., by the application), a previously selected feature (e.g., a feature that was present the last time the application was used), and/or a real-time determination that a user is likely to use the first function. For example, Function Toggle Repository 132 may continuously, and in real time, update information about a user – See paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Permkrishna’s teaching into Dominguez’s and Garvey’s inventions because incorporating Permkrishna’s teaching would enhance Dominguez and Garvey to enable determine feature in real time as suggested by Permkrishna (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 3,
Dominguez discloses
wherein at least one of the one or more micro front-ends is removed from the user experience based on a lack of or reduction in user data associated with interaction with the at least one of the one or more micro front-ends (desired to add, remove or rearrange features of a UI component of a web application at runtime in response to a particular context or change of context. For example, it may be desired to provide a first set of features to a user determined to be in a first location and a second set of features to a user determined to be in second location. Likewise, it may be desired to provide a first set of features to one type of user (e.g., a user determined to be pre-approved for a loan, a trusted user, an administrator) and a second set of features to another type of user (e.g., a user determined not to be pre-approved for a loan, an untrusted user, a non-administrator). As yet another example, it may be desired to present different variants of the same UI component to different users or user populations for the purposes of conducting A/B testing. Numerous other examples may be contemplated – See paragraphs [0026-0028]).
Premrishna also discloses
wherein at least one of the one or more micro front-ends is removed from the user experience based on a lack of or reduction in user data associated with interaction with the at least one of the one or more micro front-ends (all functions in a function set may be removed or replaced with an alternative function based on the current availability status of the function (e.g., if a function is currently down, then a similar function is selected). In addition, the system may determine an alternative function set for the first function set; and determine an alternative micro frontend fragment corresponding to the alternative function set – See paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, the system of claim 1,
Premkrishna discloses
wherein the context configuration module is further programmed to:
prompt a user associated with the user context to make a selection between at least two micro front-ends (Developers of these Vertical MFEs have the autonomy to choose the framework and tooling of their choice to build and deploy their Vertical MFEs…micro frontends are components of web application user interfaces (e.g., front ends) that are composed of semi-independent fragments that can be built by different developers using different technologies. Micro-frontend architectures resemble back-end architectures where back ends are composed of semi-independent microservices – See paragraphs [0006-0009]); and
compose the user experience based on the selection (the function toggle repository provides an additional governance layer as well as composing micro frontend fragments into a single cohesive user experience for the end user – See paragraphs [0006-0009]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Permkrishna’s teaching into Dominguez’s and Garvey’s inventions because incorporating Permkrishna’s teaching would enhance Dominguez and Garvey to enable to choose the framework and tooling to build and deploy MFEs as suggested by Permkrishna (paragraph [0038]).
10. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez and Garvey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishra et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0272917 A1 – art made of record -- herein after Mishra).
Regarding claim 8, the system of claim 1,
Misha discloses
wherein each of the first presentation and the second presentation is selected from a group consisting of a tile, a button, a header element, a composite micro front-end, a sidebar, a chat element, and a hyperlink (present a user interface (UI), including, e.g., images, graphics, text, textures, buttons, toggles, text input, among other UI elements or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the UI may present the UI elements according to a UI configuration that defines the absolute and/or relative location of each UI element and/or the contents of each UI element (e.g., text, image, interactive content, etc.). In some embodiments, the UI may be defined according to, e.g., screen size, device type, input type, content, content type, predefined layouts and/or content, among other factors – See paragraphs [0026-0028]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Misha’s teaching into Dominguez’s and Garvey’s inventions because incorporating Misha’s teaching would enhance Dominguez and Garvey to enable to define the absolute and/or relative location of each UI element and/or the contents of each UI element (e.g., text, image, interactive content, etc.) as suggested by Misha (paragraphs [0026]).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manohar et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0251835 A1) discloses allows for selected micro frontends to be incorporated into the base application. Metadata corresponding to the selected micro frontend is identified and parsed to identify at least one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) that are defined in the metadata. The identified APIs are incorporated with the micro frontends to create a final version of the micro frontend. The runtime version of the base application is constructed by combining the final version of the micro frontends with the base application – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Bhargava et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0394021 A1) discloses UI module empowers users to effortlessly design mobile UI layouts by leveraging an intuitive drag-and-drop interface for component selection and placement. The server module handles the incoming request from the mobile application and serves as a repository for mobile applications data and store the UI templates and widgets data. Meanwhile, the client module is responsible for parsing the UI logic into the native mobile UI – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Kolesov et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0385027 A1) discloses generating, by the microservice application development platform, a microservice frontend application package based on the mockup package; and integrating the microservice frontend application package, wherein a vendor application is integrated utilization the microservice frontend application based on the requirements package – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Murugesan et al. (US Patent No. 11411800 B1) discloses based on the single page application request, the gateway determines that the shell service is experiencing a failure. Responsive to determining that the shell service is experiencing a failure, the gateway retrieves, from a content delivery network, a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with a time-lapse hypertext markup language (HTML) of the single page application. The gateway redirects the client device to the time-lapse HTML of the single page application using the URL – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights