DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 19 December 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”). This action is made Final.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 12, and 20 are currently amended.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following limitations: “sending contextual user information to a server computing system, the contextual user information comprising: information descriptive of a user of the user computing device; and information received from the user via an existing input field of an existing form rendered by the user computing device, wherein the information received from the user comprises an input from the user. wherein the input comprises a selection of a navigation interface element that navigates from the existing form rendered by the user computing device to a subsequent form;” and “receiving, from the server computing system, a data object generated based on the contextual user information, wherein the data object is indicative of one or more input fields of a dynamically rendered form, and wherein the data object comprises information indicative of a field type for each of the one or more input fields.”
Applicant has indicated that support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 4, 32, and 81 of the specification. However, the referenced portion of the specification does not disclose the above limitations. Specifically, there is no description of a data object generated based on contextual information comprising a selection of navigation interface element, wherein the data object is indicative of input fields of a dynamically rendered form. Rather, the specification merely discloses that a user may “select a navigation interface element that navigates from the existing form rendered by the user computing device to a subsequent form.” Specification ¶ 81.
Additionally, the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I). With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for generating a data object based on contextual information comprising a selection of navigation interface element, wherein the data object is indicative of input fields of a dynamically rendered form.
Claims 2 and 4-11 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above.
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 1-2, 4, and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al., US 2018/089159 A1, in view of Sivertson et al., US 2016/0147729 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jain discloses a user computing device, comprising: one or more processor devices; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processor devices, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
Sending contextual user information to a server computing system, the contextual user information comprising: information descriptive of a user of the user computing device. Jain teaches sending collected data to an application server. Jain ¶ 79, fig. 2 (step 4). The collected data may include information descriptive of a user, such as sensor data. Id. ¶ 79.
Receiving, from the server computing system, a data object generated based on the contextual user information, wherein the data object is indicative of one or more input fields of a dynamically rendered form, and wherein the data object comprises information indicative of a field type for each of the one or more input fields. Jain teaches using the collected data to make adjustments to an electronic form. Jain ¶¶ 80-81. The application server sends form data to the user device. Id. ¶ 72, fig. 2 (step 3). The form data configures an application to provide a form for display to a user. Id. ¶ 72. The form data may include a data type for a field. Id. ¶¶ 78, 120.
Based on the data object, displaying a rendering of the dynamically rendered form comprising the one or more input fields. Jain teaches displaying the form at the user device. Jain ¶ 73, fig. 1.
Jain alone does not disclose, but the combination of Jain with Sivertson renders obvious:
[Sending contextual user information to a server computing system, the contextual user information comprising:] information received from the user via an existing input field of an existing form rendered by the user computing device, wherein the information received from the user comprises an input from the user. wherein the input comprises a selection of a navigation interface element that navigates from the existing form rendered by the user computing device to a subsequent form. Jain teaches sending collected data to an application server. Jain ¶ 79, fig. 2 (step 4). The collected data may include user input into the field of a form presented at a user device. Id. ¶ 79. Jain does not explicitly disclose sending input comprising selection of a navigation interface element. However, Sivertson teaches a client transmitting a user action to a server. Sivertson ¶¶ 48, 53-54. The server may determine subsequent content to send to the client in response to the user action. Id. ¶ 55. The user action may be selection of a navigation button. Id. ¶¶ 53, 141, fig. 11 (forward navigation button 1116).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Jain’s process of sending collected data to a server with Sivertson’s process of transmitting a selection of a navigation interface element to a server. Such a modification would increase usability by facilitating the presentation of navigation patterns and actuators that are native to the client’s platform. See Sivertson ¶ 42.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Jain discloses wherein the data object further comprises information indicative of a layout of the one or more input fields within the dynamically rendered form. Jain teaches the form data may include form definitions. Jain ¶ 75. Form definitions may specify a layout of the form. Id. ¶ 54.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Jain discloses wherein obtaining the rendering of the dynamically rendered form comprises: based on the data object, generating the rendering of the dynamically rendered form. Jain teaches the form data configures an application to provide a form for display to a user. Jain ¶ 72, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Jain discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving user input information input by the user to the one or more input fields. Jain ¶ 76.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Jain discloses:
Wherein the data object further comprises interface information that defines a particular data object format that is compatible with a dynamic form interface of the server computing system. Jain teaches the form data may include a data type (e.g., numerical input) for a field. Jain ¶¶ 78, 120.
Wherein the operations further comprise: based on the interface information, generating a response data object of the particular data object format, wherein the response data object is descriptive of the user input information; and sending the response data object to the server computing system via the dynamic form interface of the server computing system. Jain teaches sending collected data to an application server. Jain ¶ 79, fig. 2 (step 4). The collected data may include, for example, user input into the field of a form presented at a user device. Id. ¶ 79.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7, Jain discloses: wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the server computing system, instructions to apply one or more modifications to the dynamically rendered form, wherein the instructions are based at least in part on the user input information; and applying the one or more modifications to the rendering of the dynamically rendered form. Jain teaches the application server sending form data to the user device. Jain ¶ 72, fig. 2 (step 3). The form data configures an application to provide a form for display to a user. Id. ¶ 72. The form data may be used to trigger a new or updated form. Id. ¶ 73.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Jain discloses wherein applying the one or more modifications to the rendering of the dynamically rendered form comprises: modifying the rendering of the dynamically rendered form to add an additional input field to the dynamically rendered form. Jain teaches the sent form data may be used to trigger a new or updated form. Id. ¶ 73.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 8, Jain discloses wherein applying the one or more modifications to the rendering of the dynamically rendered form comprises: modifying a field type of at least one of the one or more input fields of the dynamically rendered form. Jain teaches the sent form data may be used to trigger a new or updated form. Id. ¶ 73.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 7, Jain discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
Receiving, from the server computing system, a second data object generated based on the user input information, wherein the second data object is indicative of a second dynamically rendered form comprising one or more second input fields, and wherein the second data object comprises information indicative of a field type for each of the one or more second input fields. Jain teaches using collected data to make adjustments to an electronic form. Jain ¶¶ 80-81. The application server sends form data to the user device. Id. ¶ 72, fig. 2 (step 3). The form data configures an application to provide a form for display to a user. Id. ¶ 72. The form data may include a data type for a field. Id. ¶¶ 78, 120.
Based on the second data object, displaying a rendering of the second dynamically rendered form. Jain teaches displaying the form at the user device. Jain ¶ 73, fig. 1.
Claims 12-18 are drawn to methods for performing the functions of the apparatuses recited in claims 1-2 and 7-11, respectively. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejections of the corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 14, Jain discloses wherein the method further comprises:
Based on the user input information, selecting, by the computing system, one or more second input fields for inclusion in a second data object; generating, by the computing system, the second data object, wherein the second data object is indicative of the one or more second input fields. Jain teaches using the collected data to make adjustments (e.g., adding interface elements) to an electronic form. Jain ¶¶ 80-81.
Sending, by the computing system, second rendering information to the user computing device associated with the user of the one or more users, wherein the second rendering information comprises the second data object and instructions to render a second dynamically rendered form from the second data object. Jain teaches the application server sending form data to the user device. Jain ¶ 72, fig. 2 (step 3). The form data configures an application to render a form for display to a user. Id. ¶ 72.
Claim 20 is drawn to instructions stored in a medium that implement the functions of the apparatuses recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al., US 2018/089159 A1, in view of Sivertson et al., US 2016/0147729 A1, further in view of McLellan, US 7,685,609 B1.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Jain does not explicitly disclose, but McLellan discloses wherein obtaining the rendering of the dynamically rendered form comprises: receiving the rendering of the dynamically rendered form from a computing entity other than the user computing device. McLellan teaches a server-side rendering of a form. McLellan fig. 1 (rendering engine 116), fig. 2 (step 210).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Jain’s process of obtaining a rendering of a dynamic form with McLellan’s process of server-side rendering of a form. Such a modification would conserve computing resources by facilitating distributed form event processing. See McLellan 1:9-12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the novelty/nonobviousness of the pending claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection to teach the newly amended/added limitations. Applicant is referred to the above detailed rejections for further explanation.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171