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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 4, 12, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Adams (US Patent Number 9,513,763), referred to as Adams herein.
Beck et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0035869), referred to as Beck herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Beck.
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a computer-implemented method for displaying a user interface (UI) based on user preferences, the computer-implemented method comprising (Adams, Abstract – automatic adaptation of the user interface based on user data):
collecting, by one or more processors, user preferences for a plurality of users from user interaction with 12:12, 13:65-4:15 – demographic and user action characteristics are captured regarding the user, including actions to modify the UI layout . 8:33-54 – UI elements include menus);
creating, by the one or more processors, a user persona for a user based on predicted user preferences for the configurable UI elements obtained from the model; receiving, by the one or more processors, user selections of UIs to be customized based on the user persona, wherein the user selections are selected from a group of UIs that have at least one UI element that is capable of being altered based on the user persona (Adams, Figs. 9A-9B with 3:65-4:15, 19:11-20:16 – user attributes and characteristics (persona) mapped to user UI layout configurations. Three word processing UIs are shown each with a different layout of UI elements associated with the user persona. 3:65-4:15 – user selections to establish or modify the layout are detected. 14:16-43 – receiving request to initiate an application); and
responsive to an instruction to launch a UI included in the user selections of UIs, generating, by the one or more processors, a customized UI for the user by altering one or more UI elements of the UI based on the user persona for the user (Adams, Fig. 5 with 14:16-43 – receiving request to initiate an application. 2:56-3:10 – automatic configuration of the UI based on determined attributes and characteristics associated with the user and environment and similar users).
However, Adams appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Beck discloses an adaptive user interface based on user preferences (Beck, Abstract), including
a prompt-based menu system and natural language processing (Beck, Figs. 1-2 with ¶0022, ¶0034, ¶0037, ¶0064-0066, ¶0083 – prompt menu receiving a natural language input inquiry for customizing the interface)
training, by the one or more processors, a model to predict user preferences for configurable UI elements of a UI layout (Beck, ¶0035 – previous user activity is used to train the machine learning algorithm to provide suggested UI content)
responsive to an instruction to launch a UI included in the user selections of UIs, generating, by the one or more processors, a customized UI (Beck, ¶0040 – the UI customization may be generated upon launch based on previous user input).
Therefore, 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 adaptive UI of Adams to include a natural language prompt interface, machine learning training, and providing adaptation upon launch based on the teachings of Beck. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more efficient guidance and responsiveness to user needs through direct user interaction (Beck, ¶0002-¶0003), additional flexibility and adaptation, and to improve responsiveness and efficiency by providing adaptation immediately upon user access based on available attribute information.
Regarding claim 2, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses executing, by the one or more processors, actions selected by the user based on the one or more UI elements that have been altered for the customized UI (Adams – 5:47-6:4 – changes to layouts include features such as menus or buttons which are interactive features of the software application. Beck, ¶0055 – user selection of customized interface elements to perform the corresponding action).
Regarding claim 3, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the clustering algorithm is a K-Means clustering machine learning algorithm (Adams, Fig. 5 with 4:35-4:55, 9:1-25, 13:44-65 – k-means clustering).
Regarding claim 5, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses mapping, by the one or more processors, the user preferences in the user persona to the one or more UI elements of the UI layout; and defining, by the one or more processors, the one or more UI elements for the UI layout based on the user preferences in the user persona (Adams, Figs. 3 and 5 with 12:13-47 and 13:44-14:15 – mapping between identified information and actions taken by the user with regard to UI layout).
Regarding claim 6, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the user persona is manually updated by the user with individual user preferences for the configurable UI elements (Adams, Fig. 3 with 11:60-12:33 – manual configuration of the interface is included in the information used to determine how to configure the interface. 5:7-34 – observations of manual configurations are used again in the future under the same circumstances. Beck, ¶0040 – the UI customization may be generated upon launch based on previous user input).
Regarding claim 7, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses monitoring user interaction with the customized UI; and updating the user persona for the user based on user behavior indicated by the user interaction (Adams, Fig. 3 with 11:60-12:33 – manual configuration of the interface is included in the information used to determine how to configure the interface. 5:7-34 – observations of manual configurations are used again in the future under the same circumstances. Beck, ¶0040 – the UI customization may be generated upon launch based on previous user input).
Regarding claim 8, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more UI elements of the UI layout are visual elements of the UI (Adams, 5:47-6:3, 8:32-53 – menus, buttons, tools, tool bars, sliders and other interactive graphical elements of the user interface).
Regarding claim 9, Adams discloses a display computer program product for displaying a user interface (UI) based on user preferences, the display computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform (Adams, Abstract – automatic adaptation of the user interface based on user data. Fig. 2 with 10:54-11:3 – computer processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory. The Examiner notes Applicant’s Specification ¶0023 reciting that a computer-readable storage medium is not to be construed as transitory signals per se):
collecting, user preferences for a plurality of users from user interaction with
identify the preferred configuration based on the identified preferences and similar identified users. Fig. 9B with 19:65-20:16 – user similarities are used to assign layouts);
creating, a user persona for a user based on predicted user preferences for the configurable UI elements obtained from the model; receiving user selections of UIs to be customized based on the user persona, wherein the user selections are selected from a group of UIs that have at least one UI element that is capable of being altered based on the user persona (Adams, Figs. 9A-9B with 3:65-4:15, 19:11-20:16 – user attributes and characteristics (persona) mapped to user UI layout configurations. Three word processing UIs are shown each with a different layout of UI elements associated with the user persona. 3:65-4:15 – user selections to establish or modify the layout are detected. 14:16-43 – receiving request to initiate an application); and
responsive to an instruction to launch a UI included in the user selections of UIs, generating a customized UI for the user by altering one or more UI elements of the UI based on the user persona for the user (Adams, 14:16-43 – receiving request to initiate an application. 2:56-3:10 – automatic configuration of the UI based on determined attributes and characteristics associated with the user and environment and similar users).
However, Adams appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Beck discloses an adaptive user interface based on user preferences (Beck, Abstract), including
a prompt-based menu system and natural language processing (Beck, Figs. 1-2 with ¶0022, ¶0034, ¶0037, ¶0064-0066, ¶0083 – prompt menu receiving a natural language input inquiry for customizing the interface)
training, by the one or more processors, a model to predict user preferences for configurable UI elements of a UI layout (Beck, ¶0035 – previous user activity is used to train the machine learning algorithm to provide suggested UI content)
responsive to an instruction to launch a UI included in the user selections of UIs, generating, by the one or more processors, a customized UI (Beck, ¶0040 – the UI customization may be generated upon launch based on previous user input).
Therefore, 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 adaptive UI of Adams to include a natural language prompt interface, machine learning training, and providing adaptation upon launch based on the teachings of Beck. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more efficient guidance and responsiveness to user needs through direct user interaction (Beck, ¶0002-¶0003), additional flexibility and adaptation, and to improve responsiveness and efficiency by providing adaptation immediately upon user access based on available attribute information.
Regarding claim 10, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 9 above, and further discloses comprising: executing actions selected by the user based on the one or more UI elements that have been altered for the customized UI (Adams – 5:47-6:4 – changes to layouts include features such as menus or buttons which are interactive features of the software application. Beck, ¶0055 – user selection of customized interface elements to perform the corresponding action).
Regarding claim 11, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 9 above, and further discloses the clustering algorithm is a K-Means clustering machine learning algorithm (Adams, Fig. 5 with 4:35-4:55, 9:1-25, 13:44-65 – k-means clustering).
Regarding claim 13, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 9 above, and further discloses mapping the user preferences in the user persona to the one or more UI elements of the UI layout; and defining the one or more UI elements for the UI layout based on the user preferences in the user persona (Adams, Figs. 3 and 5 with 12:13-47 and 13:44-14:15 – mapping between identified information and actions taken by the user with regard to UI layout).
Regarding claim 14, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the user persona is manually updated by the user with individual user preferences for the configurable UI elements (Adams, Fig. 3 with 11:60-12:33 – manual configuration of the interface is included in the information used to determine how to configure the interface. 5:7-34 – observations of manual configurations are used again in the future under the same circumstances. Beck, ¶0040 – the UI customization may be generated upon launch based on previous user input).
Regarding claim 15, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses monitoring user interaction with the customized UI; and updating the user persona for the user based on user behavior indicated by the user interaction (Adams, Fig. 3 with 11:60-12:33 – manual configuration of the interface is included in the information used to determine how to configure the interface. 5:7-34 – observations of manual configurations are used again in the future under the same circumstances. Beck, ¶0040 – the UI customization may be generated upon launch based on previous user input).
Regarding claim 16, Adams discloses a display system for displaying a user interface based on user preferences, the display system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising (Adams, Abstract – automatic adaptation of the user interface based on user data. Fig. 2 with 8:5-17 and 10:54-11:3 – computer processors executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
collecting user preferences for a plurality of users from user interaction with a
creating a user persona for a user based on predicted user preferences for the configurable UI elements obtained from the model; receiving, by the one or more processors, user selections of the UIs to be customized based on the user persona, wherein the user selections are selected from a group of UIs that have at least one UI element that is capable of being altered based on the user persona (Adams, Figs. 9A-9B with 3:65-4:15, 19:11-20:16 – user attributes and characteristics (persona) mapped to user UI layout configurations. Three word processing UIs are shown each with a different layout of UI elements associated with the user persona. 3:65-4:15 – user selections to establish or modify the layout are detected. 14:16-43 – receiving request to initiate an application); and
responsive to an instruction to launch a UI included in the user selections of UIs generating a customized UI for the user by altering one or more UI elements of the UI based on the user persona for the user (Adams, 14:16-43 – receiving request to initiate an application. 2:56-3:10 – automatic configuration of the UI based on determined attributes and characteristics associated with the user and environment and similar users).
However, Adams appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Beck discloses an adaptive user interface based on user preferences (Beck, Abstract), including
a prompt-based menu system and natural language processing (Beck, Figs. 1-2 with ¶0022, ¶0034, ¶0037, ¶0064-0066, ¶0083 – prompt menu receiving a natural language input inquiry for customizing the interface)
training, by the one or more processors, a model to predict user preferences for configurable UI elements of a UI layout (Beck, ¶0035 – previous user activity is used to train the machine learning algorithm to provide suggested UI content)
responsive to an instruction to launch a UI included in the user selections of UIs, generating, by the one or more processors, a customized UI (Beck, ¶0040 – the UI customization may be generated upon launch based on previous user input).
Therefore, 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 adaptive UI of Adams to include a natural language prompt interface, machine learning training, and providing adaptation upon launch based on the teachings of Beck. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more efficient guidance and responsiveness to user needs through direct user interaction (Beck, ¶0002-¶0003), additional flexibility and adaptation, and to improve responsiveness and efficiency by providing adaptation immediately upon user access based on available attribute information.
Regarding claim 17, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses executing actions selected by the user based on the one or more UI elements that have been altered for the customized UI (Adams – 5:47-6:4 – changes to layouts include features such as menus or buttons which are interactive features of the software application. Beck, ¶0055 – user selection of customized interface elements to perform the corresponding action).
Regarding claim 18, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses the clustering algorithm is a K-Means clustering machine learning algorithm (Adams, Fig. 5 with 4:35-4:55, 9:1-25, 13:44-65 – k-means clustering).
Regarding claim 20, Adams as modified discloses the elements of claim 16, above, and further discloses embodied in a cloud-computing environment (Beck, ¶0087 – back-end cloud computing services).
Therefore, 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 adaptive UI of Adams to include a cloud computing environment based on the teachings of Beck. The motivation for doing so would have been to leverage distributed processing and storage resources, enabling the client device to remain smaller and more flexible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights