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 Office Action is in response to the application 18/412,076 filed on 01/12/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2024, 01/11/2025, 05/23/2025 08/25/52025, 02/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 17-20 are directed to “[a]computer readable storage medium;” The specification does not explicitly exclude communication/propagate medium from the claimed ‘computer readable storage medium.” At most, in paragraphs [0141]-[0142] and [0158], the specification provides some examples regarding different kind of computer readable medium; the specification does not explicitly exclude communication medium from the claimed computer readable storage medium. Under a recent precedential opinion, the scope of the recited “computer readable storage medium” encompasses transitory media such as signals or carrier waves, where, as here the Specification does not limit the computer readable storage medium to non-transitory forms. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 35 U.S.C. 101 since it encompassed transitory media). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to either “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” or “a computer-readable storage device,” or the like to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101; (emphasis added).
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al., (“Daredia,” US 2020/0403817), in view of Wu et al., (“Wu,” US 2018/0189857).
Regarding claim 1, Daredia discloses an apparatus comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (Daredia: pars. 0132; 0141-0142; Fig. 7; a processor 702, a memory 704), the processor configured to:
log user actions with respect to placement of objects of content on a user interface including respective content types of the objects of content (Daredia: pars. 0112-0117; Figs. 5A-5B; the objects/contents are displayed based on information which are relevant to specific user),
train [[an artificial intelligence (AI)]] machine learning model to learn location preferences for a content type on the user interface based on the logged user actions including the respective content types (Daredia: pars. 0064-0065, 0071; Fig. 3; a trained machine-learning model 316; and also see pars. 0060-0064-0067, 0108, 0112),
receive a request to open an object on the user interface with the content type, determine a display location on the user interface for the object based on execution of the [[AI]] machine learning model on the content type (Daredia: par. 0038-0039, 0112-0117; Figs. 5A-5B; the content management system 102 determines a subset of action items relevant to specific user; for example a subset 504a, 504b, 506a. and 506b of action items), and
display the object at the determined display location on the user interface (Daredia: pars. 0112-0117; Fig. 5A-5B).
Daredia discloses all limitations above, but does not explicitly disclose an artificial intelligence (AI).
However, Wu discloses a method for providing recommendation through conversation AI, comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) model (Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Wu with the system/method of Daredia. One would have been motivated to improve efficiency and personalize experiences.
Regarding claim 2, Daredia and Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Daredia further discloses, wherein the processor is configured to log horizontal and vertical pixel locations of objects within the user interface and content types of the objects (Daredia: pars. 0152-0153; Fig. 8; the size digital contents display to client based on resolution of client’s device).
Regarding claim 3, Daredia and Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Daredia and Wu further disclose, wherein the processor is configured to train the AI model (Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820) to learn spatial locations of the objects of content within the user interface with respect to an outer perimeter of the user interface (Daredia: pars. 0151-0153; Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Wu with the system/method of Daredia. One would have been motivated to improve efficiency and personalize experiences.
Regarding claims 9-11; claims 9-11 are directed to method associated with the system claimed in claims 1-3 respectively; Claims 9-11 are similar in scope to claims 1-3 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 17-16; claims 17-19 are directed to computer-readable storage medium associated with the system claimed in claims 1-3 respectively; Claims 17-19 are similar in scope to claims 1-3 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al., (“Daredia,” US 2020/0403817), in view of Wu et al., (“Wu,” US 2018/0189857), Berliner et al., (“Berliner,” US 2022/0255995), and further in view of Figueredo de Santana et al., (“Figueredo de Santana,” US 2022/0283930).
Regarding claim 4, Daredia and Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Daredia and Wu do not explicitly disclose, wherein to identify movement of the object from the determined display location to a different display location on the user interface, and store a log of the identified movement within a log file.
However, Berliner discloses a system for sharing content, wherein identify movement of the object from the determined display location to a different display location on the user interface (Berliner: pars. 0242-0243, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8B; and also see par. 0479; Fig. 37C) and store a movement (Berliner: par. 0054; a user’s input will be store in a memory device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Berliner with the system/method of Daredia and Wu. One would have been motivated to move a content from first location to another location.
Daredia, Wu, and Beliner disclose all limitation above, but do not explicitly disclose a log file.
However, Figueredo de Santana discloses a system for generating test cases for testing software, including a log file (Figueredo de Santana: par. 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Figueredo de Santana with the system/method of Daredia, Wu, and Berliner. One would have been motivated to analyze data containing user interaction data and device characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, Daredia, Wu, Berliner, and Figueredo de Santana disclose the apparatus of claim 4.
Wu further discloses, wherein the processor is further configured to retrain the AI model ((Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Wu with the system/method of Daredia, Berliner, and Figueredo de Santana. One would have been motivated to improve efficiency and personalize experiences.
Berliner further discloses, wherein the identified movement of the object from the determined display location to the different display location on the user interface (Berliner: pars. 0242-0243, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8B; and also see par. 0479; Fig. 37C) and store a movement (Berliner: par. 0054; a user’s input will be store in a memory device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Berliner with the system/method of Daredia, Wu, and Figueredo de Santana . One would have been motivated to move a content from first location to another location.
Figueredo de Santana further discloses a log file (Figueredo de Santana: par. 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Figueredo de Santana with the system/method of Daredia, Wu, and Berliner. One would have been motivated to analyze data containing user interaction data and device characteristics.
Regarding claims 12-13; claims 12-13 are directed to method associated with the system claimed in claims 4-5 respectively; Claims 12-13 are similar in scope to claims 4-5 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale
Regarding claim 20; claim 20 is directed to computer-readable storage medium associated with the system claimed in claim 4; Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al., (“Daredia,” US 2020/0403817), in view of Wu et al., (“Wu,” US 2018/0189857), Berliner et al., (“Berliner,” US 2022/0255995)
Regarding claim 6, Daredia and Wu disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Daredia and Wu do not explicitly disclose, wherein receive an input on a different object already positioned within the user interface, and in response, rearrange a position of the different object within the user interface based on the content type of the different object.
However, Berliner discloses a system for sharing content, wherein the processor is further configured to receive an input on a different object already positioned within the user interface, and in response, rearrange a position of the different object within the user interface based on the content type of the different object (Berliner: pars. 0126-33, 0134, 0193, and 0203; Figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Berliner with the system/method of Daredia and Wu. One would have been motivated to move and rearrange a content to another location.
Regarding claim 7, Daredia, Wu, and Berliner disclose the apparatus of claim discloses 6.
Daredia further discloses , wherein determine the content type of different object (Daredia: pars. 0112-0117; Figs. 5A-5B; the objects/contents are displayed based on information which are relevant to specific user; and also see pars. 0060-0064-0067, 0108, 0112).
Wu further discloses, wherein the processor is configured to determine a new position for the different object based on execution of the AI model on the content type of the different object and move the different object to the new position on the user interface (Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820. Berliner: pars. 0242-0243, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8B; and also see par. 0479; Fig. 37C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Wu with the system/method of Daredia. One would have been motivated to improve efficiency and personalize experiences.
Berliner further discloses, wherein determine a new position for the different object of the content type of the different object and move the different object to the new position on the user interface (Berliner: pars. 0242-0243, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8B; and also see par. 0479; Fig. 37C) and store a movement (Berliner: par. 0054; a user’s input will be store in a memory device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Berliner with the system/method of Daredia and Wu. One would have been motivated to move a content from first location to another location.
Regarding claims 14-15; claims 14-15 are directed to method associated with the system claimed in claims 6-7 respectively; Claims 14-15 are similar in scope to claims 6-7 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al., (“Daredia,” US 2020/0403817), in view of Wu et al., (“Wu,” US 2018/0189857), in view of Booth et al., (“Booth,” US 2021/0289264), and further in view of Berliner et al., (“Berliner,” US 2022/0255995).
Regarding claim 8, Daredia and Wu the apparatus of claim 1.
Daredia further disclose the content types of the objects (Daredia: pars. 0112-0117; Figs. 5A-5B; the objects/contents are displayed based on information which are relevant to specific user; and also see pars. 0060-0064-0067, 0108, 0112)
Wu further discloses the AI model (Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Wu with the system/method of Daredia. One would have been motivated to improve efficiency and personalize experiences.
Daredia and Wu do not explicitly disclose, wherein capture locations of objects currently displayed on the user interface and dynamically rearrange the locations of the objects on the user interface.
However, Booth discloses a system for performing a video surveillance system, wherein capture locations of objects currently displayed on the user interface and the content types of the objects (par. 0162; Fig. 18B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Booth with the system/method of Daredia and Wu. One would have been motivated to help identifying types of object of content.
Daredia, Wu, and Booth do not explicitly disclose, wherein dynamically rearrange the locations of the objects on the user interface
However, Berliner discloses a system for sharing content, wherein dynamically rearrange the locations of the objects on the user interface (Berliner: pars. 0637).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Berliner with the system/method of Daredia, Wu, and Booth. One would have been motivated to update changing of object content on display.
Regarding claim 16; claim 16 is directed to method associated with the system claimed in claim 8; Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968))
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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 L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights