The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action replaces all previous office actions
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/01/2026 has been entered.
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 05/01/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0112710; Hereinafter Huang) in view of Parsolano, III (US 2018/0275971).
Re claims 1, 14, and 20, Huang teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a textual prompt ([0028], the user provides a textual description as input);
based on the textual prompt, generating, via at least a natural language processing and pre-established graphical user interface (GUI) metadata, relational data indicating respective relationships between components of a GUI (NLP) model ([0028], based on the user command, the machine learning model will generate a GUI that shows a login page. Also see [0033], natural language textual description. Further, see [0027], JSON file where each node corresponding to a graphical element contains various properties of the graphical element such as class); and
generating, based on the relational data ([0026], machine language model generates GUI/prototype from learned representation) but Huang does not teach generate an implementation-specific representation of the GUI that is compatible with a GUI design tool. However, it is taught by Parsolano.
Parsolano teaches generate an implementation-specific representation of the GUI ([0033]-[0034] and [0043]-[0047], selecting templates for software code that define a GUI in the native code environment of a receiving computing device. The templates are selected according to the target device/environment and are then modified to match GUI characteristic such as: sizing, colors, position, layout, and function….compiling the resulting source code in the native code environment of the receiving device. The system generates code adaptable for use by the GUI-based environments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Parsolano’s content into Huang’s invention because it would provide a predictable way to represent and generate GUI components according to specified layouts and positions to improve control over the resulting GUI design.
Re claim 2, Huang teaches wherein the respective relationships between the components collectively represent an arrangement of the components within the GUI ([0039]-[0040], x-coordinate, y-coordinate, width, height, element class/type, ordering the UI elements according to X and Y coordinates).
Re claim 3, Huang does not teach wherein the components are represented in the relational data as nodes of a tree-like structure. However, it is taught by Parsolano ([0049], describing GUI design elements in a tree data structure …then recursively selects one or more templates for each portion of the tree data structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Parsolano’s content into Huang’s invention because it would provide a hierarchical representation of the GUI components and their relationships. Such representation would facilitate organizing, parsing, and processing the GUI components and their associated layout information during GUI generation.
Re claim 4, Huang does not teach wherein generating the relational data includes determining characteristics of the tree-like structure and the components. However, Parsolano teaches this claim ([0049], parsing a user interface tree with the system recursively processing portions of the tree and selecting/modifying templates based on the GUI information, altering the templates to match characteristic of the desired GUI as seen in [003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Parsolano’s content into Huang’s invention because it would provide predictable way to organize the component information in a hierarchical structure and determine the characteristics of the components for subsequent GUI generation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Parsolano and further in view of Goligorsky (US 2024/0265205).
Re claim 11, Huang does not teach wherein generating the relational data comprises adding at least some of the textual prompt to a pre-defined NLP prompt. However, it is taught by Goligorsky (figs. 4-7 and [0042], features inputs and prompt instructions from the user within the same input field).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Goligorsky’s content into the combination of Parsolano and Huang’s invention because it would provide applying a known prompt-template technique to the existing tex-based GUI-generation system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Parsolano and further in view of Payne (US 2020/0133642).
Re claims 13 and 19, Huang does not teach wherein generating the implementation-specific representation comprises applying a one-to-one mapping between the components and design artifacts supported by the GUI design tool. However, it is taught by Payne ([0015] and [0026], The UI design system mapping platform can automatically map certain ones of the design system components from the library file to corresponding ones of the design artifacts of the design document file to generate the mapped specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Payne’s content into the combination of Parsolano and Huang’s invention because it would facilitating use and further editing of the generated GUI within the design tool.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Parsolano and further in view of Nusrat (US 2023/0015686).
Re claim 21, Huang does not teach wherein pre-established GUI metadata comprises pre-established GUI layouts and pre-established GUI component embeddings. However, it is taught by Nusrat ([0015], selecting a template from an assortment of templates, and responding to a series of prompts (e.g., textual prompts or visual prompts), and optionally selecting one or more assets from an asset library).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Nusrat’s content into the combination of Parsolano and Huang’s invention because it would provide reusable GUI assets and semantic representations for efficient and consistent GUI generation and would have been a predictable application of known asset-library and embedding techniques .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 12 and 15-18 are 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 set forth in this action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights