DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Applicant thanks Examiner Parcher for the courtesy of a telephone interview on April 13, 2026, attended by Applicant's representative William Kalweit. The discussion centered around the intention to claim elements that were not related to authentication, but rather to testing conditions in which the UIC was to be deployed to enable or disable deployment depending on whether the conditions are appropriate. Examiner Parcher expressed a belief that the claim language encompassed mere authentication. It was suggested that amendments that specified operating conditions for the recited context elements would move the case forward.
The Examiner notes that operating environment can encompass geofencing. Beckman as cited below teaches geofencing restrictions. To the extent that Applicant is considering other kinds of operating environments, the Examiner has included relevant references at the Conclusion of this Office Action for Applicant’s review.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the multiple elements including several UICs in a composed user interface” (emphasis added). However, claim 1 previously introduces “the UIC being one of multiple UICs hosted by the system” and “composable with other UICs” into a user interface. It is not clear whether the several UICs is referring to one of the “multiple UICs” or one of the “other UICs” or is introducing new UICs. As a result of this antecedent ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Similarly claim 11.
Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective independent or intervening claim(s) and are rejected on the same basis.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Premkrishna et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0303094), referred to as Premkrishna herein [previously cited].
Feldman (US Patent Application Publication 2002/0152212), referred to as Feldman herein [previously cited].
Sanders et al. (US Patent Number 11,140,061), referred to as Sanders herein [previously cited].
Beckman et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0089673), referred to as Beckman herein [previously cited].
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman in view of Premkrishna in further view of Beckman.
Regarding claim 1, Feldman discloses a non-transitory machine readable medium including instructions for use-constrained user interface component distribution, the instructions, when executed by processing circuitry of a system, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising (Feldman, Abstract, ¶0004 – web page access entitlement based on requestor membership. ¶0035, ¶0065-¶0068 – processor executing programming instructions stored in hardware memory):
receiving, at the system, a request for a user interface component (UIC), the UIC being one of multiple UICs hosted by the system,
the request corresponding to a call context with a first element for an application making the request, the first element including a first field name and a first field value (Feldman, ¶0044 – request including identifiers for accessor name and resource ID. ¶0075 – web browser application. ¶0034 – software application access),
retrieving, based on receipt of the request for the UIC, a use context corresponding to the UIC, the use context including a second element, the second element including a second field name and a second field value, object names are keys within a registry including corresponding to values of entitlement expression descriptions. The object registry is queried using the object name to determine the corresponding entitlement expression field value. The entitlement expression field value corresponds to an accessor field. The entitlement expressions are lists of call contexts for which the resource is appropriate to access),
wherein the multiple elements of the call context include an element that does not have a corresponding element in the use context (Feldman, ¶0046 – the accessor corresponds to a list called “Male” which is not listed in the entitlement expressions for any of the resources in Table 2);
comparing the first field value to the second field value to determine that the first field value does not meet the second field value; and
However, Feldman appears not to expressly disclose the limitations shown in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Premkrishna discloses network-based resource access control (Premkrishna, Abstract with ¶0035), including
receiving, at the system, a request for a user interface component (UIC), the UIC being one of multiple UICs hosted by the system, individual UICs being composable with other UICs into a user interface, the call context including multiple elements that include the first element, the multiple elements including several UICs in a composed user interface (Premkrishna, Figs. 2 and 4 with ¶0059-¶0060, and ¶0066 – user request to launch an application. The request for access to the application corresponds to a function set and corresponding micro frontend fragments for the first application)
comparing the first value to the second value to determine that the first value does not meet the second value; and transmitting a failure message in response to the request based on the first value not meeting the second value (Premkrishna, ¶0037, ¶0069 – APIs are not authorized when the API is inconsistent with the governance protocol. An error message is transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the objects and denial of Feldman to include micro frontend fragments and error message transmission based on the teachings of Premkrishna. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable access to independent pieces of software, such as micro frontends, which are not under direct control, while maintaining clear structure in the user interface along particular guidelines (Premkrishna, ¶0041).
However, Feldman as modified appears not to expressly disclose the call context defining an operating environment in which the UIC will be used, the use context provided by a creator of the UIC.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Beckman discloses a container with restricted or denied access to content, including website content form the internet (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0071),
the call context defining an operating environment in which the UIC will be used (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0105-¶0112 – the device geographical location is checked against geolocking or geofencing rules to determine whether access to the container is permitted. Geofencing rules can include a location with a predetermined threshold distance from the location that is allowed (in the example, the distance is within 10km of city boundaries). ¶0100-¶0111 – device location can be GPS coordinates and geocodes),
the use context provided by a creator of the UIC (Beckman, ¶0030, ¶0033, ¶0098, ¶0107-¶0108, ¶0113 – enterprise ownership and enterprise geofencing controls based on company policy and rules. ¶0114 – access is specified by the content creator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the entitlement field of Feldman to include geofencing or geolocking rules based on the teachings of Beckman. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase flexibility over content restrictions and control, to prevent unwanted access (Beckman, ¶0004), including in circumstances where users are in authorized locations or the device has been stolen or lost (Beckman, ¶0009).
Regarding claim 2, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the second field value is a range, and wherein the first field value is not within the range (Feldman, Fig. 4 with ¶0041-¶0050 and Tables 1 and 2 – entitlement expressions include a range of accessors entitled to access the object. Accessors outside of the range are denied access to the object).
Regarding claim 3, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the second field value is an alphanumeric value, and wherein the first field value has a degree of difference to the alphanumeric value that is beyond a predetermined threshold (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0105-¶0112 – the device geographical location is checked against geolocking or geofencing rules to determine whether access to the container is permitted. Geofencing rules can include a location with a predetermined threshold distance from the location that is allowed (in the example, the distance is within 10km of city boundaries). ¶0100-¶0111 – device location can be GPS coordinates and geocodes).
Regarding claim 4, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Feldman as modified does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first element and the second element correspond to a physical location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Beckman discloses a container with restricted or denied access to content, including website content form the internet (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0071),
wherein the first element and the second element correspond to a physical location (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0105-¶0113 – the device geographical location is checked against geolocking or geofencing rules to determine whether access to the container is permitted. Geofencing rules can include a location with a predetermined threshold distance from the location that is allowed (in the example, the distance is within 10km of city boundaries)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the entitlement field of Feldman to include geofencing or geolocking rules based on the teachings of Beckman. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase flexibility over content restrictions and control, to prevent unwanted access (Beckman, ¶0004), including in circumstances where users are in authorized locations or the device has been stolen or lost (Beckman, ¶0009).
Regarding claim 5, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first element is a list of other elements in the user interface (Feldman, ¶0044 – request including identifiers for accessor name and resource ID. Premkrishna, ¶0038, ¶0063-¶0066, ¶0071 – first function set corresponds to a variety of requested functions and corresponding graphical elements, icons, or libraries to be fetched in implementing the corresponding function).
Regarding claim 6, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 5 above, and further discloses wherein the second element is a list of elements that are composable with the UIC (Feldman, Fig. 4 with ¶0041-¶0050 and Tables 1 and 2 – object/entitlement registry is a list of elements that can be composed or not composed within the UIC depending on the accessor. For example, from Table 2, for a Medical Doctor that is not a Physical Therapist or US Subscriber, the registry is a list of objects (Web Pages 1-4), that are composable).
Regarding claim 7, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 5 above, and further discloses wherein the second element is a list of elements that cannot be composed with the UIC (Feldman, Fig. 4 with ¶0041-¶0050 and Tables 1 and 2 – object/entitlement registry is a list of elements that can be composed or not composed within the UIC depending on the accessor. For example, from Table 2, for a US Subscriber that is a Physical Therapist and not a Medical Doctor, the registry is a list of objects (Web Pages 2-4), that are not composable).
Regarding claim 8, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the operations comprise recording telemetry of requests for the UIC (Beckman, Fig. 9 with ¶0100-¶0101 – client information, including GPS coordinates, are tracked and stored, including at the client and server. See also ¶0110 – tracking of request timing and corresponding location).
Regarding claim 9, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the operations comprise: receiving a registration request for the UIC, the registration request including the use context (Feldman, Fig. 9 with ¶0062 – request for adding an object to the registry requires object name and E-expression (use context));
comparing elements of the use context with a deployment standard to determine that a third element of the use context does not meet a deployment standard (Feldman, Fig. 9 with ¶0063 – determining whether the E-expression is valid can result in determining that it is not valid); and
communicating a failure to register the UIC message based on the third element not meeting the deployment standard (Feldman, Fig. 9 with ¶0062-¶0063 – an error signal is generated to indicate the E-expression is not valid).
Regarding claim 11, Feldman discloses a method for use-constrained user interface component distribution, the method comprising (Feldman, Abstract, ¶0004 – web page access entitlement based on requestor membership. ¶0035, ¶0065-¶0068 – processor executing programming instructions stored in hardware memory):
receiving, at a system, a request for a user interface component (UIC), the UIC being one of multiple UICs hosted by the system,
the request corresponding to a call context with a first element for an application making the request, the first element including a first field name and a first field value (Feldman, ¶0044 – request including identifiers for accessor name and resource ID. ¶0075 – web browser application. ¶0034 – software application access),
retrieving, based on receipt of the request for the UIC, a use context corresponding to the UIC, the use context including a second element, the second element including a second field name and a second field value,
where in the multiple elements of the call context include an element that does not have a corresponding element in the use context (Feldman, ¶0046 – the accessor corresponds to a list called “Male” which is not listed in the entitlement expressions for any of the resources in Table 2);
comparing the first field value to the second field value to determine that the first field value does not meet the second field value; and
However, Feldman appears not to expressly disclose the limitations shown in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Premkrishna discloses network-based resource access control (Premkrishna, Abstract with ¶0035), including
receiving, at the system, a request for a user interface component (UIC), the UIC being one of multiple UICs hosted by the system, individual UICs being composable with other UICs into a user interface, the call context including multiple elements that include the first element, the multiple elements including several UICs in a composed user interface (Premkrishna, Figs. 2 and 4 with ¶0059-¶0060, and ¶0066 – user request to launch an application. The request for access to the application corresponds to a function set and corresponding micro frontend fragments for the first application)
comparing the first value to the second value to determine that the first value does not meet the second value; and transmitting a failure message in response to the request based on the first value not meeting the second value (Premkrishna, ¶0037, ¶0069 – APIs are not authorized when the API is inconsistent with the governance protocol. An error message is transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the objects and denial of Feldman to include micro frontend fragments and error message transmission based on the teachings of Premkrishna. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable access to independent pieces of software, such as micro frontends, which are not under direct control, while maintaining clear structure in the user interface along particular guidelines (Premkrishna, ¶0041).
However, Feldman as modified appears not to expressly disclose the call context defining an operating environment in which the UIC will be used, the use context provided by a creator of the UIC.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Beckman discloses a container with restricted or denied access to content, including website content form the internet (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0071),
the call context defining an operating environment in which the UIC will be used (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0105-¶0112 – the device geographical location is checked against geolocking or geofencing rules to determine whether access to the container is permitted. Geofencing rules can include a location with a predetermined threshold distance from the location that is allowed (in the example, the distance is within 10km of city boundaries). ¶0100-¶0111 – device location can be GPS coordinates and geocodes),
the use context provided by a creator of the UIC (Beckman, ¶0030, ¶0033, ¶0098, ¶0107-¶0108, ¶0113 – enterprise ownership and enterprise geofencing controls based on company policy and rules. ¶0114 – access is specified by the content creator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the entitlement field of Feldman to include geofencing or geolocking rules based on the teachings of Beckman. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase flexibility over content restrictions and control, to prevent unwanted access (Beckman, ¶0004), including in circumstances where users are in authorized locations or the device has been stolen or lost (Beckman, ¶0009).
Regarding claim 12, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the second field value is a range, and wherein the first field value is not within the range (Feldman, Fig. 4 with ¶0041-¶0050 and Tables 1 and 2 – entitlement expressions include a range of accessors entitled to access the object. Accessors outside of the range are denied access to the object).
Regarding claim 13, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the second field value is an alphanumeric value, and wherein the first field value has a degree of difference to the alphanumeric value that is beyond a predetermined threshold (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0105-¶0112 – the device geographical location is checked against geolocking or geofencing rules to determine whether access to the container is permitted. Geofencing rules can include a location with a predetermined threshold distance from the location that is allowed (in the example, the distance is within 10km of city boundaries). ¶0100-¶0111 – device location can be GPS coordinates and geocodes).
Regarding claim 14, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the first element and the second element correspond to a physical location (Beckman, Abstract with ¶0105-¶0112 – the device geographical location is checked against geolocking or geofencing rules to determine whether access to the container is permitted. Geofencing rules can include a location with a predetermined threshold distance from the location that is allowed (in the example, the distance is within 10km of city boundaries)).
Regarding claim 15, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the first element is a list of other elements in the user interface (Feldman, ¶0044 – request including identifiers for accessor name and resource ID. Premkrishna, ¶0038, ¶0063-¶0066, ¶0071 – first function set corresponds to a variety of requested functions and corresponding graphical elements, icons, or libraries to be fetched in implementing the corresponding function).
Regarding claim 16, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the second element is a list of elements that are composable with the UIC (Feldman, Fig. 4 with ¶0041-¶0050 and Tables 1 and 2 – object/entitlement registry is a list of elements that can be composed or not composed within the UIC depending on the accessor. For example, from Table 2, for a Medical Doctor that is not a Physical Therapist or US Subscriber, the registry is a list of objects (Web Pages 1-4), that are composable).
Regarding claim 17, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the second element is a list of elements that cannot be composed with the UIC (Feldman, Fig. 4 with ¶0041-¶0050 and Tables 1 and 2 – object/entitlement registry is a list of elements that can be composed or not composed within the UIC depending on the accessor. For example, from Table 2, for a US Subscriber that is a Physical Therapist and not a Medical Doctor, the registry is a list of objects (Web Pages 2-3), that are not composable).
Regarding claim 18, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses comprising recording telemetry of requests for the UIC (Beckman, Fig. 9 with ¶0100-¶0101 – client information, including GPS coordinates, are tracked and stored, including at the client and server. See also ¶0110 – tracking of request timing and corresponding location).
Regarding claim 19, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses receiving a registration request for the UIC, the registration request including the use context (Feldman, Fig. 9 with ¶0062 – request for adding an object to the registry requires object name and E-expression (use context));
comparing elements of the use context with a deployment standard to determine that a third element of the use context does not meet a deployment standard (Feldman, Fig. 9 with ¶0063 – determining whether the E-expression is valid can result in determining that it is not valid); and
communicating a failure to register the UIC message based on the third element not meeting the deployment standard (Feldman, Fig. 9 with ¶0062-¶0063 – an error signal is generated to indicate the E-expression is not valid).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman in view of Premkrishna in further view of Beckman in further view of Sanders.
Regarding claim 10, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 9 above, and further discloses wherein the registration request includes source code for a portion of the UIC
However, Feldman as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sanders discloses network application access control techniques, including application of governing policies (Sanders, Abstract with 1:10-22), including
wherein the registration request includes source code for a portion of the UIC, and wherein communication of the failure is also based on the source code deviating from the deployment standard (Sanders, Figs. 3-4 with 5:49-6:12, 8:15-35, 8:46-9:26 – new source code added to the repository is monitored for compliance with policies. Source code which violates the policies is rejected from the repository).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the registry of Feldman as modified to include source code standards based on the teachings of Sanders. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the likelihood that the applications and services are used in an unintended manner, and to restrict access to user accounts with certain characteristics (Sanders, 1:10-22), reducing threats and enhancing security.
Regarding claim 20, Feldman as modified discloses the elements of claim 19 above, and further discloses wherein the registration request includes source code for a portion of the UIC, and (Feldman, ¶0076-¶0077 – registration object source code. Premkrishna, ¶0054-¶0056 – source code language management and standardization for API interfaces for microservices).
However, Feldman as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sanders discloses network application access control techniques, including application of governing policies (Sanders, Abstract with 1:10-22), including
wherein the registration request includes source code for a portion of the UIC, and wherein communication of the failure is also based on the source code deviating from the deployment standard (Sanders, Figs. 3-4 with 5:49-6:12, 8:15-35, 8:46-9:26 – new source code added to the repository is monitored for compliance with policies. Source code which violates the policies is rejected from the repository).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the registry of Feldman as modified to include source code standards based on the teachings of Sanders. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the likelihood that the applications and services are used in an unintended manner, and to restrict access to user accounts with certain characteristics (Sanders, 1:10-22), reducing threats and enhancing security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are at least relevant as indicated in the corresponding summary.
Callahan (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0325509) – creator sets application’s minimum resource requirements (¶0059, ¶0066-¶0067, ¶0085-¶0087, ¶0117).
51 Degrees, “Understanding the User Agent string” (https://web.archive.org/web/20230125205131/https://51degrees.com/blog/understanding-user-agent-string) - the call context includes browser/operating system environment.
Stack Overflow “Display a Message When a browser is Unsupported” (https://web.archive.org/web/20161214145838/https://stackoverflow.com/questions/348202/display-a-message-when-a-browser-is-unsupported ) - creator specifies the use context including browser version.
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 DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights