DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/25/2026 has been entered.
3. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed 02/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 02/28/2025 is 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 § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-19 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ciminelli et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0409298 A1; hereinafter referred to as Ciminelli), in view of Kumar et al. (Patent No. US 10,489,126 B2; hereinafter referred to as Kumar), and in further view of Schmidt et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0021309 A1; hereinafter referred to as Schmidt).
As per claim 1, Ciminelli discloses a computer-implemented method of creating an app, the method including:
providing UI parameters characterizing properties of an app UI of the app (See p. [0028] – design elements);
determining at least one sample app UI based on the provided UI parameters (See p. [0037] – historic designs);
displaying the respective sample app UI to the user via the app development UI (See p. [0042] – displaying generated designed based on all historic data, designer persona, style, etc);
receiving user input indicative of an amendment to at least one property of the properties of the sample app UI via the app development UI (See p. [0063] – modify draft/sample by user’s input);
determining amended UI parameters using the received user input (See Fig. 5 – “amendment” changing parameters identified based on user’s input);
determining at least one updated sample app UI using the respective, amended UI parameter (See Fig. 5 – presentation of the updated design).
Although Ciminelli discloses a platform in which UI is develop for an application (See p. 0027]); Ciminelli does not explicitly states the actual application provision -
providing an app development user interface (UI) of an app development platform to a user for developing the app; developing the app through the app development UI by using the updated sample app UI; receiving UI constraints included in at least one styling guide, at least one template, at least one source of best practices, or a combination thereof; amended… and the received UI constraints.
Kumar discloses an automated application generation, which is based on UI design and documentation - providing an app development user interface (UI) of an app development platform to a user for developing the app (See abstract – application development environment); developing the app through the app development UI by using the updated sample app UI (See column 11, lines 57-65, and column 12, lines 1-3 – generating application based on GUI development.
Schmidt discloses - receiving design UI constraints included in at least one styling guide, at least one template, at least one source of best practices, or a combination thereof; amended… and using both, the received design UI constraints and input (See abstract; p. [0050, 0053, 0214] – constraints/parameters/templates).
Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Ciminelli’s UI development and customization based on user’s input and historical samples; and combine it with Kumar’s application development and generation based on GUI development; and further combine them with Schmidt’s UI design system with automatic front/back-end generator; thus, the combination enables automatically generating implementation of the GUI based upon the GUI model, so that the executable implementation encapsulates look and feel of the GUI, the functionalities of the GUI and mapping or associations to data models corresponding to UI components; and further improving accuracy of model generation system over time and increasing accuracy of a classifier in detecting UI components and determining the types of the UI components, when generating software applications, while enabling automation of user interface creation that becomes imperative to achieve true hyper-personalization, and enables designing visual editors to be intuitive and user-friendly, and allowing the user to quickly and easily make changes to the design without having to edit the underlying code directly (See Ciminelli’s, Kumar’s and Schmidt’s abstracts and backgrounds).
As per claim 2, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the respective UI parameter characterizes a functional representation and/or a perceivable representation of at least an app UI element of the app UI (See Kumar’s column 3, lines 60-67, and column 4, lines 1-3 – functional and perceivable representation).
As per claim 3, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the determined respective sample app UI comprises at least one novel functional representation and/or perceivable representation of at least an app UI element of the app UI (See Ciminelli’s Fig. 5, and abstract – draft/sample with perceivable representation).
As per claim 4, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the determining of the respective UI parameters comprises: determining a first UI parameter set among the UI parameters using a first algorithm; determining a second UI parameter set among the UI parameters using a second algorithm; and determining a third UI parameter set among the UI parameters using a third algorithm, wherein the first UI parameter set, the second UI parameter set, and the third UI parameter set characterize different visual aspects and/or functional aspects of the respective sample app UI (See Ciminelli’s p. [0065] and Figs. 3-8A and 9 – different algorithms/ML for determining a plurality and specific parameters that need specific algorithms for said determination).
As per claim 5, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the UI parameters comprise at least one weighting UI parameter that assigns a respective weighting factor to at least two other UI parameters, and wherein the respective weighting UI parameter is used during the determining of the respective sample app UI (See Kumar’s column 12, lines 47-57 – reference information/weight factors for the UI parameters determination).
As per claim 6, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein, during the determining of the respective UI parameters, a type of the app, and/or a type of the respective target device of the app are used (See Kumar’s column 25, lines 10-25 – model generated based on platform or targeted language).
As per claim 7, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the providing of the UI parameters comprises: providing textual UI input information; and determining at least one of the UI parameters from the provided textual UI input information using a trained function (See Ciminelli’s abstract – textual determination based on trained model; also see Kumar’s abstract – also textual determination based on trained model).
As per claim 8, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7 (See claim 7 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the trained function uses a large language model or a generative model (See Ciminelli’s p. [0042] – generative, also p. [0069] – LLM; also see Kumar’s column 2, lines 14-31 – classifier).
As per claim 9, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the providing of the UI parameters comprises: providing graphical UI input information; and determining at least one of the UI parameters from the provided graphical UI input information using a computer vision algorithm (See Kumar’s column 2, lines 14-31 – vision algorithm for images; also see Ciminelli’s p. [0065-0066] – vision algorithm).
As per claim 10, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the provided UI parameters comprise UI parameters characterizing properties of the app UI of the app at an earlier development stage, UI parameters characterizing properties of an app UI of a different app, or a combination thereof (See Kumar’s column 11, line 46 – previous and different application).
As per claim 11, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the user input indicative of the amendment is received via user interaction with at least one interactive UI element displayed to the user, and wherein the respective interactive UI element comprises a button, a mixer, a text box to enable language interactions or to interact with a chatbot (See Ciminelli’s p. [0091] – text box).
As specified in claim 1 rejection; although Ciminelli discloses a platform in which UI is develop for an application (See p. 0027]); Ciminelli does not explicitly states - via the app development UI.
Kumar discloses - via the app development UI (See abstract – application development environment; also see column 11, lines 57-65, and column 12, lines 1-3 – generating application based on GUI development).
Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Ciminelli’s UI development and customization based on user’s input and historical samples; and combine it with Kumar’s application development and generation based on GUI development; and further combine them with Schmidt’s UI design system with automatic front/back-end generator; thus, the combination enables automatically generating implementation of the GUI based upon the GUI model, so that the executable implementation encapsulates look and feel of the GUI, the functionalities of the GUI and mapping or associations to data models corresponding to UI components; and further improving accuracy of model generation system over time and increasing accuracy of a classifier in detecting UI components and determining the types of the UI components, when generating software applications, while enabling automation of user interface creation that becomes imperative to achieve true hyper-personalization, and enables designing visual editors to be intuitive and user-friendly, and allowing the user to quickly and easily make changes to the design without having to edit the underlying code directly (See Ciminelli’s, Kumar’s and Schmidt’s abstracts and backgrounds).
As per claim 12, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), further comprising: iterating the following steps at least once: displaying the at least one updated sample app UI to the user; receiving user input indicative of an amendment to at least one property of the properties of the updated sample app UI; determining the respective amended UI parameters using the received user input; and determining the at least one updated sample app UI using the respective, amended UI parameter, wherein the app is developed through the app development UI by using a last, updated sample app UI (See Ciminelli’s Figs. 3-8A and 9 – amendments/changes/updates made based on input are displayed).
As specified in claim 1 rejection; although Ciminelli discloses a platform in which UI is develop for an application (See p. 0027]); Ciminelli does not explicitly states - via the app development UI.
Kumar discloses - via the app development UI (See abstract – application development environment; also see column 11, lines 57-65, and column 12, lines 1-3 – generating application based on GUI development).
Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Ciminelli’s UI development and customization based on user’s input and historical samples; and combine it with Kumar’s application development and generation based on GUI development; and further combine them with Schmidt’s UI design system with automatic front/back-end generator; thus, the combination enables automatically generating implementation of the GUI based upon the GUI model, so that the executable implementation encapsulates look and feel of the GUI, the functionalities of the GUI and mapping or associations to data models corresponding to UI components; and further improving accuracy of model generation system over time and increasing accuracy of a classifier in detecting UI components and determining the types of the UI components, when generating software applications, while enabling automation of user interface creation that becomes imperative to achieve true hyper-personalization, and enables designing visual editors to be intuitive and user-friendly, and allowing the user to quickly and easily make changes to the design without having to edit the underlying code directly (See Ciminelli’s, Kumar’s and Schmidt’s abstracts and backgrounds).
As per claim 13, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 11 (See claim 11 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), further comprising performing the following steps in real-time: receiving user input indicative of an amendment to at least one property of the properties of the sample app UI; determining the respective amended UI parameters using the received user input; determining the at least one updated sample app UI using the respective, amended UI parameter; and displaying the at least one updated sample app UI to the user (See Ciminelli’s Figs. 3-8A and 9 – properties amendments/changes made based on input are displayed).
As specified in claim 1 rejection; although Ciminelli discloses a platform in which UI is develop for an application (See p. 0027]); Ciminelli does not explicitly states - via/through the app development UI.
Kumar discloses - via/through the app development UI (See abstract – application development environment; also see column 11, lines 57-65, and column 12, lines 1-3 – generating application based on GUI development).
Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Ciminelli’s UI development and customization based on user’s input and historical samples; and combine it with Kumar’s application development and generation based on GUI development; and further combine them with Schmidt’s UI design system with automatic front/back-end generator; thus, the combination enables automatically generating implementation of the GUI based upon the GUI model, so that the executable implementation encapsulates look and feel of the GUI, the functionalities of the GUI and mapping or associations to data models corresponding to UI components; and further improving accuracy of model generation system over time and increasing accuracy of a classifier in detecting UI components and determining the types of the UI components, when generating software applications, while enabling automation of user interface creation that becomes imperative to achieve true hyper-personalization, and enables designing visual editors to be intuitive and user-friendly, and allowing the user to quickly and easily make changes to the design without having to edit the underlying code directly (See Ciminelli’s, Kumar’s and Schmidt’s abstracts and backgrounds).
Claims 14-15 are essentially the same as claim 1 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
As per claim 16, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the UI design constraints are included in the at least one styling guide (See Schmidt’s p. [0050] – styling guide).
As per claim 17, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the UI design constraints are included in the at least one template (See Schmidt’s p. [0213-0214] – template).
As per claim 18, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the UI design constraints are included in the one source of best practices (See Schmidt’s p. [0054] – guidelines).
As per claim 19, Ciminelli, Kumar and Schmidt disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the UI design constraints comprise a layout structure and/or styling information, and wherein the styling information comprises a color of a structural element, a color of a background, a size of the structural element, a size of a label of the structural element, or combinations thereof (See Schmidt’s p. [0053-0054] – color/structure/etc).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. In these arguments applicant relies on the amended claims and not the original ones. See above rejections under 35 USC § 103 for response to arguments.
10. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571)272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
03/16/2026.