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 .
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With regard to claim 17, In summary, claim 17 recites a “computer-readable storage medium” comprising instructions stored therein, that perform various functions. In the Specification of the present application, the “computer-readable storage medium” is not defined in such a manner to not exclude non-statutory subject matter (signals/transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Accordingly, claim 17 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 18-20 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 17; therefore, are also rejected.
Examiner suggests to recite “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9:
Claims 1, 9 recite an apparatus, a method respectively, and is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following, for which the bolded items are interpreted to encompass steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:
render a graphical user interface within a software application including a plurality of elements, modify locations of the plurality of elements within the graphical user interface based on user inputs on the graphical user interface, generate a dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface including the modified locations of the plurality of elements based on an execution of an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the rendered graphical user interface, and store the dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface within a storage.
More specifically, the plurality of elements can be displayed, modified and mapped can be performed by writing down on piece of a paper using a pen or using a generic machine and the claim language therefore appears to be merely an abstract idea, a mental process that is able to be performed by a person in their mind. While in claims 1, 9 artificial intelligence (AI) model is used, the AI model is described at a high level of generality without any particular details regarding how the models is generated and executed to generate dynamic mapping. As such, a human equipped with pen and paper or a generic machine could follow a similar “model” to arrive at the claimed generated and identified data.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements/limitations of a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, store the dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface within a storage.
With regards to the additional element/limitation, this additional element is considered as merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified this type of limitation is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, these additional elements identified above when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The additional elements, generate a dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface including the modified locations of the plurality of elements based on an execution of an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the rendered graphical user interface, and store the dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface within a storage, when considered, individually and in combination, these additional elements fail to amount to ‘significantly more’. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. The AI model is described at a high level of generality without any particular details regarding how the models is generated and executed to generate dynamic mapping. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, “executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Claims 2-8, 10-16
With regards to claims 2-8 and 10-16, they recite further judicial exceptions of mental steps and/or organizing human activity (such displaying modified elements based upon stored mapping, dependent on device type and using historical data) and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-7, 9-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamel et al (US Patent 11257144 B1 hereinafter Hamel) in view of Navarro et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0156283 A1 hereinafter Navarro).
With regard to claims 1, 9, 17, Hamel teaches an apparatus a method, a computer-readable storage medium respectively, comprising:
a memory <fig 11 item 2020>; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to <fig 11 item 2010a>:
render a graphical user interface within a software application including a plurality of elements <graphical user interface is displayed with plurality of elements such as text field, windows with buttons that can be selected within a search application col 16 lines 53-65>,
generate a dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface including the modified locations of the plurality of elements based on an execution of an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the rendered graphical user interface <machine learning including deep learning can be used to map user interface based upon various context including device context col 11 lines 3-32>, and
store the dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface within a storage <user interface <user interface data can be stored see fig 2 item 230 col 10 lines 13-27>.
Hamel does not appear to explicitly disclose modify locations of the plurality of elements within the graphical user interface based on user inputs on the graphical user interface.
In the same field of endeavor,
Navarro teaches modify locations of the plurality of elements within the graphical user interface based on user inputs on the graphical user interface <user interface elements can be modified <user can perform operations to move items on a touch display para 0040>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hamel, Navarro before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Hamel to include the teachings of Navaro, in order to move/resize elements on a user interface. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides ability to reposition elements on a user interface and examiner notes that it is a well-known capability of a user interface.
With regard to claims 2, 10, 18, these claims depend upon claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Hamel teaches wherein the processor is configured to receive a request to open the software application comprising a display window <fig 6A items 630, 640 and 650 show displaying of windows>, and in response, configure locations of user interface elements within the display window of the software application based on the stored dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface.
With regard to claims 3, 11, 19, these claims depend upon claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively, which are rejected above.
Although Hamel teaches adapting displays based upon device type (col 11 line 53 – col 12 line 4), In addition, Navarro further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a device type of a user device where the software application is being opened and generate the dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface based on the execution of the AI model on the device type of the user device <application pages can be mapped based upon type of device para 0024>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hamel, Navarro before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Hamel to include the teachings of Navaro, in order to display user interface according to display of the device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides proper display that adjust according to the device type.
With regard to claims 4, 12, 20, these claims depend upon claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Hamel teaches wherein the processor is configured to identify a device type of a user device where the software application is being opened and configure the locations of the plurality of elements on the graphical user interface within a display window based on the device type of the user device <user interface is shown according to device type such as mobile or desktop interface see fig 5 col 15 line 53 – col 16 line 8>.
With regard to claims 5, 13, these claims depend upon claims 1, and 9 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Hamel teaches wherein the plurality of elements comprises a plurality selected from a group of elements including a button, a slider, a text field <fig 6A item 610 shows a text input field col 16 lines 53-65>, a combo box, and a menu, which are displayed within the graphical user interface.
With regard to claims 6, 14, these claims depend upon claims 1, and 9 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Hamel teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a request for the graphical user interface, and in response, reconstruct the graphical user interface with the modified locations of the plurality of elements based on the stored dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface <persistent user interface data can be used to store and access the data col 7 line 63 – col 8 line 25>.
With regard to claims 7, 15, these claims depend upon claims 1, and 9 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Hammel teaches wherein the processor is configured to train the AI model prior to generating the dynamic mapping of the graphical user interface, wherein the training comprises executing the AI model based on historical locations of user interface elements of a user of the software application <history of the user interface elements can be used col 13 lines 65, col 14 lines 1-18>.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172