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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 09/27/2021 are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11960864 (hereinafter ‘864)
With regards to claim 1 of the instant application (18/597901, hereinafter ‘901), claim 14of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 2 of ‘901, claim 14 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 2 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘901, claim 15 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 4 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘901, claim 14 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 5 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘901, claim 17 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 6 of ‘901 (since at least one of the input type data is used to design an interface for an application through recognition of button, box, etc of the input).
With regards to claim 7 of ‘901, claim 15 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 7 of ’901 (for at least one including adjusting position of content entity based on grid).
With regards to claim 15 of ‘901, claim 7 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 15 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘901, claim 10 of ‘865 teaches the limitations of claim 16 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 19 of ‘901, claim 9 of ‘865 teaches the limitations of claim 19 of 901.
Claims 3, 8-14, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11960864 (hereinafter ‘864) in view of Scott (US Application: US 2014/0040238, published: Feb. 6, 2014, filed: Aug. 6, 2012).
With regards to claim 3 of ’901, claim 14 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 3 of ‘901 except a design idea application program interface …
Yet Scott teaches … a design idea application programming interface (API) … based on …. (paragraph 0035: the processing engine includes an API)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 14 of ‘864’s ability to retrieve design ideas through processing (including application logic and content analysis processing) such that the processing could been implemented using an API, as taught by Scott et al. The combination would have implemented a more efficient way to author a document by integrating suggestions into a user interface based upon referencing results of searched/interfaced data.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘901, claim 1 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 8 of ‘901 except .. an application program interface … use an API.
Yet Scott teaches .. an application program interface … use an API (paragraph 0035: the processing engine includes an API)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 8 of ‘864’s ability to retrieve design ideas through processing (including application logic and content analysis processing) such that the processing could been implemented using an API, as taught by Scott et al. The combination would have implemented a more efficient way to author a document by integrating suggestions into a user interface based upon referencing results of searched/interfaced data.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘901, claim 6 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 9 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘901, claim 5 of ‘865 teaches the limitations of claim 10 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘901, claim 4 of ‘865 teaches the limitations of claim 11 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘901, claim 5 of ‘865 teaches the limitations of claim 12 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 13 of ‘901, claim 3 of ‘865 teaches the limitations of claim 13 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 14 of ‘901, claim 6 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 14 of ‘901.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘901, claim 7 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 17 of ‘901 except application programming interface (API) …
Yet Scott et al teaches application programming interface (API) …. (paragraph 0035: the processing engine includes an API)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 17 of ‘864’s ability to retrieve design ideas through processing (including application logic and content analysis processing) such that the processing could been implemented using an API, as taught by Scott et al. The combination would have implemented a more efficient way to author a document by integrating suggestions into a user interface based upon referencing results of searched/interfaced data.
With regards to claim 20, claim 9 of ‘864 teaches the limitations of claim 20 of ‘901 except application programming interface (API) …
Yet Scott et al teaches application programming interface (API) …. (paragraph 0035: the processing engine includes an API)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 9 of ‘864’s ability to retrieve design ideas through processing (including application logic and content analysis processing) such that the processing could been implemented using an API, as taught by Scott et al. The combination would have implemented a more efficient way to author a document by integrating suggestions into a user interface based upon referencing results of searched/interfaced data.
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, 2, 4-7, 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al (US Application: US 2018/0349730, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: May 30, 2017) in view of PresenterCoach (“Say hello to Presenter Coach, PowerPoint’s new AI-powered tool which will help you nail your next presentation”, publisher: Microsoft, published: 2019, pages 1-6).
With regards to claim 1, Dixon teaches a system comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the processor (Fig. 9: a processor, with a memory is implemented) to:
obtain input content of a content type (paragraphs 0052, 0090: the input has encompasses multiple types including image and digital types since it includes pixels (which are digital image data); and an interface design type since it includes data that are used to generate interface components. The input data also includes depicted circles, images, text, rectangles);
select a content data extractor from a set of content data extractors based on the content type (paragraphs 0047, 0050 and 0052: a GUI component content classifier is selected /applied to perform data extraction content and labels such as dimensions, size, styling));
extract a set of content entities from the obtained input content using the selected content data extractor (paragraph 0052: using the classifiers that have indicated positive recognition, data is extracted for additional labeling);
normalize the set of content entities according to a standard interface schema (paragraph 0084: the content components/ entities can be normalized through one or more types of normalization aspects such as alignment schema (for i.e. alignment grid having a column text on left and image data on right , for each line of data in a vertical listing );
generate an application template using the normalized set of content entities, whereby an application can be developed using the generated application template (Fig. 7: a template is generated for the normalized components);
However Dixon et al does not expressly teach … display a set of design ideas via a graphical user interface; receive a user selection of an individual design idea from the set of design ideas; generate a preview by applying the selected individual design idea to the generated application template; and display the preview via the graphical user interface.
Yet PresenterCoach teaches … display a set of design ideas via a graphical user interface (page 4: an interface can display design ideas based upon content of a business template (i.e. the content having text/words and/or context-data)); receive a user selection of an individual design idea from the set of design ideas (page 4 and 6: the user can opt for a design idea recommendation by selecting from one of the design ideas. The design ideas include different visual components of different visual styles in page 6); generate a preview by applying the selected individual design idea to [target] generated application [content] (page 6: as a result of the user selecting from a design idea (in this case the user selects a first design idea with a cursor in the ‘design ideas’ column, the design gets applied target generated content (having different components of data and color)); and display the preview via the graphical user interface (page 6: the main center screen area is updated such that the target components have a selected design applied to them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dixon et al’s ability to obtain digital content (that encompass multiple types) and extract the content (associated with data of different types) to generate a target application-customizable-template (having normalized grid-aligned components of data), such that the target (and user alterable) application-template could have been further analyzed for data (such as text/words and other data) and subsequently customized by with a selected/desired design idea (having appearance/color data) to the components of data, as taught by PresenterCoach. The combination would have allowed people to create professional, visually engaging presentations that capture their brand identity in an efficient manner.
With regards to claim 2. The system of claim 1, the combination of Dixon et al and PresenterCoach teaches wherein a design idea is a set of appearance-based settings, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination as explained in the rejection of claim 1 did not address … and wherein the design idea comprises a set of component shapes and line styles.
Yet PresenterCoach also teaches wherein the design idea comprises a set of component shapes and line styles (page 3 of PresenterCoach: design ideas are shown , and as depicted there are a plurality of shapes and line styles in the designs shown/displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dixon and PresenterCoach’s ability to provide one or more design ideas to apply , such that the design ideas would also include shapes and line styles, as also taught by PresenterCoach. The combination would have allowed people to create professional, visually engaging presentations that capture their brand identity in an efficient manner.
With regards to claim 4. The system of claim 1, the combination of Dixon and PresenterCoach teaches wherein a design idea controls the appearance of the normalized set of content entities of the generated application template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The system of claim 1, the combination of Dixon and PresenterCoach teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code is configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive a user selection to generate the application from the preview via the graphical user interface; generate the application using the selected individual design idea to apply design styles including at least one of color schemes, font styles, component shape, and line styles, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 6. The system of claim 1, the combination of Dixon and PresenterCoach teaches wherein the input content is of at least one of the following content types: an image type, a digital document type, an interface design type, and a presentation design type, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained in Dixon above, the components could be part of an image with pixel information), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 7. The system of claim 1, the combination of Dixon and PresenterCoach teaches wherein normalizing the set of content entities according to a standard interface schema includes at least one of the following: adjusting a position of a content entity based on a grid, adjusting a size of a content entity, defining a font of text of a content entity, defining a color of a content entity, and defining a shape of a content entity, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained in Dixon above, a grid of vertical data having two columns are used as basis of alignment), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Dixon and PresenterCoach teaches one or more computer storage media having computer-executable instructions for generating an application template from input content that, upon execution by a processor, cause the processor to at least: obtain input content of a content type, wherein the input content is of at least one of the following content types: an image type, a digital document type, and an interface design type; identify a content data extractor from a set of content data extractors that matches the content type; extract a set of content entities from the obtained input content using the selected content data extractor; normalize the set of content entities according to a standard interface schema; generate an application template using the normalized set of content entities, whereby an application can be developed using the generated application template; display a set of design ideas via a graphical user interface; receive a user selection of an individual design idea from the set of design ideas; generate a preview by applying the selected individual design idea to the generated application template; and display the preview via the graphical user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The one or more computer storage media of claim 15, Dixon teaches wherein the set of content data extractors comprises: an image type-specific extractor to analyze image data of the input content to identify content entities, wherein the image type-specific extractor includes an object detection model and a text recognition model; and wherein extracting the set of content entities includes identifying objects in the input content using the object detection model and identifying text in the input content using the text recognition model (paragraph 0050, 0052: a type of object detection includes a shape detection and a text recognition to extract/identify text ).
With regards to claim 19. The one or more computer storage media of claim 15, the combination of Dixon and PresenterCoach teaches wherein a design idea is a set of appearance-based settings, and wherein the design idea comprises a set of component shapes and line styles, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al (US Application: US 2018/0349730, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: May 30, 2017) in view of PresenterCoach (“Say hello to Presenter Coach, PowerPoint’s new AI-powered tool which will help you nail your next presentation”, publisher: Microsoft, published: 2019, pages 1-6) in view of Scott (US Application: US 2014/0040238, published: Feb. 6, 2014, filed: Aug. 6, 2012).
With regards to claim 3. The system of claim 1, the combination of Dixon et al and PresenterCoach teaches wherein the set of design ideas are provided by a design idea application … based on at least one of keywords and other details of the generated application template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … a design idea application programming interface (API) … based on ….
Yet Scott et al teaches … a design idea application programming interface (API) … based on …. (paragraph 0035: the processing engine includes an API)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dixon et al and PresenterCoach’s ability to retrieve design ideas through processing (including application logic and content analysis processing) such that the processing could been implemented using an API, as taught by Scott et al. The combination would have implemented a more efficient way to author a document by integrating suggestions into a user interface based upon referencing results of searched/interfaced data.
With regards to claim 17. The one or more computer storage media of claim 15, Dixon teaches wherein the set of content data extractors comprises: an extractor associated with input content of digital document type and configured to use an application program … associated with the digital document type to extract content entities from the input content.
However Dixon and PresenterCoach does not teach … use an application program interface (API) associated with ….
Yet Scott et al teaches … use an application program interface (API) associated with …. (paragraph 0035: the processing engine includes an API).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dixon and PresenterCoach’s ability to process input is of/belongs to a plurality of input types (image, digital and interface-design) using an application’s logic to process and extract the associated input data (of a plurality of types) , such that the application would have included use of an API to help effectuate the processing, as taught by Scott et al. The combination would have allowed Dixon and PresenterCoach to have implemented a more efficient way to author a document by integrating suggestions into a user interface based upon referencing results of searched/interfaced data.
With regards to claim 18. The one or more computer storage media of claim 15, the combination of Dixon, PresenterCoach and Scott et al teaches wherein the set of content data extractors comprises: an extractor associated with input content of interface design type and configured to use an API associated with the interface design type to extract content entities from the input content, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 17, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. The one or more computer storage media of claim 15, the combination of Dixon, PresenterCoach and Scott et al teaches wherein the set of design ideas are provided by a design idea application programming interface (API) based on at least one of keywords and other details of the generated application template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 17, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al (US Application: US 2018/0349730, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: May 30, 2017) in view of Scott (US Application: US 2014/0040238, published: Feb. 6, 2014, filed: Aug. 6, 2012)
With regards to claim 8. Dixon et al teaches a computerized method (Fig. 9: a processor, with a memory is implemented) for generating an application template from input content, the computerized method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, input content of a content type, wherein the input content is of at least one of the following content types: an image type, a digital document type, and an interface design type (paragraphs 0052, 0090: the input has encompasses multiple types including image and digital types since it includes pixels (which are digital image data); and an interface design type since it includes data that are used to generate interface components. The input data also includes depicted circles, images, text, rectangles); identifying, by the processor, a content data extractor from a set of content data extractors that matches the content type, wherein the set of content data extractors comprises: an image type-specific extractor to analyze image data of the input content to identify content entities, an extractor associated with input content of digital document type and configured to use an application … associated with the digital document type to extract content entities from the input content, and an extractor associated with input content of interface design type and configured to use an [application] … associated with the interface design type to extract content entities from the input content (paragraphs 0047, 0050 and 0052: a GUI component content classifier is selected /applied to perform data extraction content and labels such as dimensions, size, styling) and to also extract/glean object data such as a button having rounded rectangle with text); extracting, by the processor, a set of content entities from the obtained input content using the identified content data extractor (paragraph 0047, 0052: using the classifiers that have indicated positive recognition, data is extracted for additional labeling); normalizing, by the processor, the set of content entities according to a standard interface schema (paragraph 0084: the content components/ entities can be normalized through one or more types of normalization aspects such as alignment schema (for i.e. alignment grid having a column text on left and image data on right , for each line of data in a vertical listing ); and generating, by the processor, an application template using the normalized set of content entities, whereby an application can be developed using the generated application template (Fig. 7: a template is generated for the normalized components).
However, although Dixon et al teaches using an application’s processing /logic associated with input of a plurality of different types (digital document, interface design and image), to perform subsequent extraction of content entities , Dixon et al does not expressly teach the application is … configured to use an application program interface (API).
Yet Scott et al teaches the application is … configured to use an application program interface (API) (paragraph 0035: the processing engine includes an API).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dixon’s ability to process input is of/belongs to a plurality of input types (image, digital and interface-design) using an application’s logic to process and extract the associated input data (of a plurality of types) , such that the application would have included use of an API to help effectuate the processing, as taught by Scott et al. The combination would have allowed Dixon to have implemented a more efficient way to author a document by integrating suggestions into a user interface based upon referencing results of searched/interfaced data.
With regards to claim 9. The computerized method of claim 8, Dixon et al teaches wherein the input content is of an image type; wherein the identified content data extractor is the image type-specific extractor, which further includes an object detection model and a text recognition model; and wherein extracting the set of content entities includes identifying objects in the input content using the object detection model and identifying text in the input content using the text recognition model (paragraph 0050, 0052: a type of object detection includes a shape detection and a text recognition to extract/identify text ).
With regards to claim 10. The computerized method of claim 9, Dixon further comprising: providing the extracted set of content entities to a content editor interface, wherein the content editor interface enables the extracted set of content entities to be adjusted by a user (Fig 5, paragraph 0071: a user can make adjustments to components/entities); prompting a user to review the extracted set of content entities using the content editor interface; obtaining an adjusted set of content entities from the content editor interface (Fig. 5, paragraph 0071: a user is presented/prompted to provide additional input for detected/extracted data); and wherein normalizing the set of content entities according to the standard interface schema includes normalizing the adjusted set of content entities according to the standard interface schema (paragraph 0072: the styling can be initially normalized/defaulted ).
With regards to claim 11. The computerized method of claim 8, , the combination of Dixon and Scott et al teaches wherein normalizing the set of content entities according to a standard interface schema includes at least one of the following: adjusting a position of a content entity based on a grid, adjusting a size of a content entity, defining a font of text of a content entity, defining a color of a content entity, and defining a shape of a content entity, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8 (as explained in Dixon above, a grid of vertical data having two columns are used as basis of alignment), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The computerized method of claim 8, Dixon et al teaches wherein the set of content entities includes at least one of the following: a text label, a text box, a button, a check box, a menu, and a scrollbar, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8 (paragraph 0047: text label of a button, and the button can be one of the content entities).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al (US Application: US 2018/0349730, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: May 30, 2017) in view of Scott (US Application: US 2014/0040238, published: Feb. 6, 2014, filed: Aug. 6, 2012) in view of Methaniya et al (US Patent: 11182604, issued: Nov. 23, 2021, issued: Nov. 23, 2021, filed: Nov. 26, 2019).
With regards to claim 12. The computerized method of claim 8, Dixon et al and Scott teaches further comprising: determining a table data structure based on the set of content entities, wherein the table data structure includes a column associated with a content entity of the set of content entities (paragraph 0085: a table structure having two columns , one of text and one of a image are identified and each row entry is for an item among a listing); … including the determined table data structure in the generated application template (paragraph 0085 and Fig. 7: the table structure is included in a generated template).
However the combination does not expressly teach … prompting a user to review the determined table data structure; and based on receiving an approval indication from the prompt to review the determined table data structure, including the determined table data structure in the generated … .
Yet Methaniya et al teaches … prompting a user to review the determined table data structure; and based on receiving an approval indication from the prompt to review the determined table data structure, including the determined table data structure in the generated … (Fig. 3A, column 4, lines 29-47: a table is provided for user confirmation to generate extracted data )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dixon and Scott’s ability to identify table structure data and include the table structure in a generated application template, such that the identified table structure can be presented to the user for confirmation , as taught by Methaniya et al. The combination would have allowed Dixon and Scott to have implemented a more accurate way to extract information from a table (Methaniya et al, column 1, lines 60-64).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al (US Application: US 2018/0349730, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: May 30, 2017) in view of Scott (US Application: US 2014/0040238, published: Feb. 6, 2014, filed: Aug. 6, 2012) in view of PresenterCoach (“Say hello to Presenter Coach, PowerPoint’s new AI-powered tool which will help you nail your next presentation”, publisher: Microsoft, published: 2019, pages 1-6)
With regards to claim 13. The computerized method of claim 8, the combination of Dixon et al and Scott teaches further comprising: … the processor, … the generated application template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach displaying, by the processor, a set of design ideas via a graphical user interface; receiving, by the processor, a user selection of an individual design idea from the set of design ideas; generating, by the processor, a preview by applying the selected individual design idea to the generated application template; and displaying, by the processor, the preview via the graphical user interface.
Yet PresenterCoach teaches displaying, by the processor, a set of design ideas via a graphical user interface; receiving, by the processor, a user selection of an individual design idea from the set of design ideas; generating, by the processor, a preview by applying the selected individual design idea to the generated application template; and displaying, by the processor, the preview via the graphical user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dixon et al and Scott’s ability to obtain digital content (that encompass multiple types) and extract the content (associated with data of different types) to generate a target application-customizable-template (having normalized grid-aligned components of data), such that the target (and user alterable) application-template could have been further analyzed for data (such as text/words and other data) and subsequently customized by with a selected/desired design idea (having appearance/color data) to the components of data, as taught by PresenterCoach. The combination would have allowed people to create professional, visually engaging presentations that capture their brand identity in an efficient manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gligan et al (US Application: US 2022/0207268): This reference teaches a form extractor using workflows that are configurable for different document types.
Vangala et al (US Patent: 10242672): This reference teaches observing user actions to predict subsequent potential user actions.
Dayanandan et al (US Application: US 2018/0203571): This reference teaches generating a graphical user interface model from an image.
Kumar et al (US Application: US 2019/0250891): This reference teaches automating GUI development from a GUI screen image that includes text and graphical user interface components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172