DETAILED ACTION
Statement of claims
The present amended application includes:
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are being considered on the merits.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 recites A ambient awareness system, comprising: a first web application, executed by one or more processors, configured to “ detect an action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the first web application” . The limitations of “to detect…” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A ambient awareness system”, “web application, executed by one or more processors” , “action by a user”, “graphical user interface (GUI) generated” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under Prong 2, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements to “transmit an event publication in response to the detecting”, “an ambient awareness layer, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: “receive the event publication from the first web application”, “ identify a second web application to be notified of the detected event, “transmit an event notification to the second web application”, “ the second web application, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer”, “ modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification”, which “… to “transmit …”, “identify …” , “receive …”, “modify …”, amounts to data gathering and display which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements “an ambient awareness layer, executed by the one or more processors…”, “the second web application, executed by the one or more processors..”, “ a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification”, are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “transmit …”, “identify …” , “receive …”, “modify …”, are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, claim 1 is not eligible.
Further claim 2, The additional element “wherein the first GUI and the second GUI constitute portions of a website or a web interface”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 3, The additional element, “wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to receive an event publication from an external source” which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
Further claim 4, The additional element “wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem, a server status subsystem, or an omni-channel subsystem” which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 5, The additional element “wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to: receive an event publication from a server status subsystem that indicates that a server is experiencing a high load”, “ transmit a notification message to the second web application in response to the event publication”, “wherein the second web application is configured to modify its behavior by rendering output calculations at a user device rather than at the server, in response to the notification message”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
Further claim 6, The additional element “wherein the second web application is configured to modify the appearance of the second GUI by displaying or emphasizing certain information, or by highlighting or emphasizing the second GUI”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Further claim 7, The additional element “wherein the second web application is a webpage manager configured to modify a layout of the webpage and/or enable or disable web applications in response to the event notification”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
As to claims 8-14
Similar analysis as claim 1 applies to claim 8.
Further Claim 8: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements “ambient awareness device”, “a communication interface” , “electronic communications”, “a memory”, “event subscriptions” , “processors”, “query the event subscriptions” which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The “ambient awareness device”, “a communication interface” , “electronic communications”, “a memory”, “event subscriptions” , “processors”, “query the event subscriptions” are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Further claim 9, The additional element “wherein the event notification includes an identification of the first web application in which the user action occurred”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
Further claim 10, The additional element wherein the event notification causes a modification of behavior or appearance in the second web application”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “causes a modification…” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept
Further claim 11, The additional element “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive an event publication from an external source”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 12, The additional element “wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem, a server status subsystem, or an omni-channel subsystem”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 13, The additional element “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit an event notification to a webpage manager responsible for managing a layout and/or appearance of the webpage”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 14, The additional element “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a subscription request from the second web application that indicates one or more event properties; and store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
As to claims 15-20:
Similar analysis as claims 1-14 applies to claims 15-20.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 is not patent eligible.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasman et al. (US2015/0039999, Chasman hereinafter) in view of VIJINI MALLAWAARACHCHI et al. (“Change Detection and Notification of Web Pages”, VIJINI hereinafter, 16 Feb 2020) .
As to claim 1, Chasman teaches a system (e.g., Figure 1 A), comprising:
a first web application, executed by one or more processors (e.g., “processor system 17”, Figure 1A) , configured to detect an action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the first web application (e.g., see FIG. 8, para 158, wherein “ a mobile device running a web application executes a web browser, which generates a user interface for a web application” and “the raised event may be triggered by user interaction” in para 162. Thus, the raised event may be triggered by user interaction , Thus, the event represent the action ), and to transmit an event publication in response to the detecting (e.g., para 162, wherein “publish a set of interface events “ para 163, “ the mobile device responds to an event raised by one of the components of the web application, as described below in methods 930 and 940 of FIGS. 9A and 9B”. Thus, to transmit an event publication in response to the detecting); the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event publication from the first web application (e.g., para 162, “ a client-side controller may handle the events within a component”, “ the functions for all of the component's actions performed in response to detected events” and “to respond to the events by displaying information updates for the identified objects in the enterprise social network feed” in para 165); identify a second web application to be notified of the detected event (e.g., in para 26 , “application identifiers for instances of web applications “, “ being notified of an updated component, may determine which web application instances need to be updated”. Thus, one of the web applications include a second web application) , and transmit an event notification to the second web application (in para 26 , “web applications “, “ being notified of an updated component, may determine which web application instances need to be updated”..
However, Chasman does not teach an ambient awareness, ambient awareness layer, executed by the one or more processors, the second web application, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer; and modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification.
VIJINI teaches an ambient awareness, ambient awareness layer executed (e.g., see FIG. 4, “server”, page 15:8 and page 15:2, “1.1 Change Detection & Notification Systems”, “to automate this monitoring process, and to notify users when changes occur in webpages”, “CDN systems”, “the search engines” and page 15:11, “Web crawling can be considered as the main process behind web caching, search engines and web information retrieval” for “DETECTING CHANGES OF WEBPAGES”, see Fig. 6. Overview of the web crawling process.) , to receive the event publication from the first web application ; identify a second web application to be notified of the detected event (e.g., see FIG. 4, “ web page 1”, “webpage 2”, “parser “ “versions” , pages 15:8 and 15:9, “Web Change Detection system (WCD)”, “WCD agent is an application operating in the browser that sends information about modifications that have occurred on webpages to the WCD server”, “the data about monitored webpages” , see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 and “crawl all the webpages”, “detects a change, it will be notified to the
interested clients” in page 15:10. Thus, the “webpages” coupled with the “WCD agent “, “parser “ “versions” include the first web application and second web application); and transmit an event notification to the second web application (e.g., see page 15:9, see “Fig. 5. Client-based architecture for CDN systems”, “clients who wish to track changes occurring on webpages”); and the second web application, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer; and modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification (e.g., see page 15:14 and 15:15, “ (1) "retrieving current versions of webpages", (2) "retrieving old versions from a version repository" and (3) "comparison of the two versions to detect the changes", “To crawl these webpages “, “dynamic mechanisms are required to detect the change frequency”, “Users will be notified immediately after changes have occurred on webpages. And “a fresh webpage is added, that webpage will be crawled to detect a suitable change frequency, and it
will be recorded in the system. In page 15:22. Thus, modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chasman with those of VIJINI because both references are directed to related systems addressing similar technical problems within the same field and seek to improve system performance, reliability, and efficiency.
Chasman et al. discloses to detect an action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the first web application while VIJINI et al. discloses to receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer; and modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification
Incorporating the teachings of VIJINI into the system of Chasman et al. would have been a predictable and logical modification, yielding improved operational robustness and efficiency without requiring undue experimentation.
Such a combination would merely involve the substitution or integration of known elements performing their established functions, as taught by VIJINI et al., into the system of Chasman, consistent with design incentives and market demands for improved performance and scalability. Moreover, VIJINI et al. explicitly recognize benefits for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI) —that would naturally be desirable in the system of Chasman.
Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Chasman with VIJINI et al., and the combination represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their known functions.
As to claim 2, Chasman does not teach wherein the first GUI and the second GUI constitute portions of a website or a web interface. However, VIJINI teaches wherein the first GUI and the second GUI constitute portions of a website or a web interface (e.g., See Figs. 4 and 5, pages 15:8 and 15:9, “Web Change Detection system (WCD)”, “WCD agent is an application operating in the browser that sends information about modifications that have occurred on webpages to the WCD server”, “the data about monitored webpages” , see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 and “crawl all the webpages”, “detects a change, it will be notified to the
interested clients” in page 15:10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claim 3, Chasman does not teach wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to receive an event publication from an external source. However, VIJINI teaches wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to receive an event publication from an external source (e.g., see Fig. 4. Server-based architecture for CDN systems and Fig. 6, “Web Server”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claim 4, Chasman does not teach wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem, a server status subsystem, or an omni-channel subsystem. However, VIJINI teaches wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem (e.g., see page 15:22, “a webpage is sent to the machine learning model”) , a server status subsystem (e.g., see Fig. 7. Arrangement of components in a distributed crawling system), or an omni-channel subsystem . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claim 5, Chasman does not teach wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to: receive an event publication from a server status subsystem that indicates that a server is experiencing a high load; and transmit a notification message to the second web application in response to the event publication, wherein the second web application is configured to modify its behavior by rendering output calculations at a user device rather than at the server, in response to the notification message. However, VIJINI teaches to: receive an event publication from a server status subsystem that indicates that a server is experiencing a high load (e.g., see page 15:8, wherein “a large number of webpages exist, the computational load for the server will increase as the server must identify changes in each of the webpages added by users”. Thus receive an event publication from a server status subsystem that indicates that a server is experiencing a high load ) ; and transmit a notification message to the second web application in response to the event publication, wherein the second web application is configured to modify its behavior by rendering output calculations at a user device rather than at the server, in response to the notification message (e.g., 15:8, “3.1 Server-based Architecture”, “Figure 4 consists of the main server, which polls webpages periodically to track changes, and sends alerts about these changes to the subscribed users (clients) by email notifications. If a large number of webpages exist, the computational load for the server will increase as the server must identify changes in each of the webpages added by users.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claim 6, Chasman does not teach wherein the second web application is configured to modify the appearance of the second GUI by displaying or emphasizing certain information, or by highlighting or emphasizing the second GUI. However, VIJINI teaches wherein the second web application is configured to modify the appearance of the second GUI by displaying or emphasizing certain information, or by highlighting or emphasizing the second GUI (see rejection of claim1 above). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claim 7, Chasman does not teach wherein the second web application is a webpage manager configured to modify a layout of the webpage and/or enable or disable web applications in response to the event notification. However, VIJINI teaches wherein the second web application is a webpage manager configured to modify a layout of the webpage and/or enable or disable web applications in response to the event notification (e.g., see page 15:10, “WCD agent is an application operating in the browser that sends information about modifications that have occurred on webpages to the WCD server. ”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claim 8, see rejection of claim 1 above . Chasman teaches further a communication interface ; a memory ; and one or more processors (see FIG. 1A) . VIJINI teaches further query the event subscriptions stored in the memory for a second web application to be notified of the detected event (see rejection of claim 7 above) ; and transmit an event notification to the second web application that informs the second web application of the user action (see rejection of claim1 above, Fig. 4 and 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claims 9-10, see rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claims 11-12, see rejection of claims 3-4 above.
As to claim 13, see rejection of claim 7 above.
As to claim 14, Chasman does not teach, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a subscription request from the second web application that indicates one or more event properties; and store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application. However, VIJINI teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a subscription request from the second web application that indicates one or more event properties; and store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application (e.g., see Fig. 13. Overview of Linked Data Notifications, page 15:29, wherein “CDN, CDN systems can make use of the LDN protocol to implement notifications sent to subscribed users.”. Thus, receive a subscription request from the second web application that indicates one or more event properties; and store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application would have been inherent). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chasman by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI)
As to claim 15, see rejection of claims 1 and 8 above.
As to claims 16-17, see rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claims 18-20, see rejection of claims 4, 7 and 14 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Totale et al. (US 10,031729) discloses a method for generating a web application. The method includes selecting a webpage in the web application and implementing a custom UI action on the webpage. Implementing the custom UI action on the webpage may include creating a hidden component on the webpage, associating a custom user interface (UI) action with the hidden component, specifying at least one input for the hidden component based on the custom UI action, specifying at least one target output for the hidden component based on the custom UI action, and associating the hidden component with a custom UI action trigger event. The method further includes deploying the web application after implementing the custom UI action on the webpage.
Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0394023) discloses generating and managing Web applications. Embodiments include receiving organized data and analyzing the organized data to determine one or more data types contained in the organized data. Based on the one or more data types, suggested widgets are determined, including determining whether a particular data type can be split into two or more data types and suggesting widgets for each split data type. The suggested widgets are presented to a user, and in response to user input accepting the suggested widgets, a Web application comprising the suggested widgets is generated..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDOU K SEYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/ABDOU K SEYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198