DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 2, 2025, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,768,950), in view of O’Kane et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,209,963), and further in view of Dayanandan (Pub. No. US 2018/0203674).
4-1. Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Hart teaches the claim comprising: accessing, by a processor of a service provider, a set of insights associated with a set of transactions, wherein the set of insights is accessed from an insight providing entity using an application programming interface, by disclosing that a user accesses an application with a user device that presents a dynamic interface [column 9, lines 51-67]. A server device 102 analyzes user transaction data [column 13, lines 20-47] to formulate behavioral information that illustrate one or more insights [columns 13, lines 55-67] that are then received as input to generate dynamic interface information for presentation in the dynamic interface [column 8, lines 16-29; column 14, lines 9-13]. One of more features or steps of the disclosed embodiments may be implemented using an API [column 9, lines 29-30].
Hart teaches… identifying, by the processor of the service provider and based on a set of rules, spatial locations within a graphical user interface page that are designated for displaying one or more insights of the set of insights, wherein the spatial locations includes a first location in the graphical user interface page that is spatially separated from a second location in the graphical user interface page,… wherein each rule in the set of rules indicates a different spatial location among the spatial locations at which to position an insight of the set of insights, by disclosing that the user device presents received data describing insights at particular locations separated from each other within a page of the dynamic interface such as basic insights on a home screen with pinned insights being displayed in a particular section [column 10, lines 22-33; figure 4A], insights about peer users beneath the user’s insights [column 12, lines 15-21; figure 4I], and insights in particular locations based on date [column 12, lines 37-47; figure 4J]. The rules in the claim are being interpreted as the program instructions the application must follow when displaying information in the interface.
Hart teaches generating, by the processor of the service provider, a graphical user interface that includes the graphical user interface page with the set of insights spatially positioned at the spatial locations, wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises positioning a first insight of the set of insights at the first location, positioning a second insight of the set of insights at the second location, and positioning a graphic at a location between the first insight and the second insight, by disclosing displaying the dynamic interface having locations for displaying one or more insights [column 9, line 51 to column 10, line 3; figures 4A-4L]. As shown in [figure 4A, 4I, and 4J], a graphic of a boarder is shown between the insights.
Although Hart discloses that the server device may include a plurality of servers and/or a plurality of insight service 104 and/or financial database 106 instances [Hart, column 5, lines 19-21], Hart does not expressly teach wherein the insight providing entity is separate from the service provider and communicatively coupled to the service provider via a network… and transmitting, by the processor of the service provider, the graphical user interface to a client device that is separate from the service provider and communicatively coupled to the service provider via a network. O’Kane discloses that when a client device accesses a third party’s Personal Information Management (PIM) system using a web browser, app, or other GUI, a PIM application displays a user interface in the form of a web page for display in the web browser [column 6, lines 55-60]. A supplemental display pane 208 displays contextually relevant user-specific content regarding the PIM application that is specific to the particular user [column 7, lines 9-13]. The context-specific content is not provided by the third party PIM application even though the context-specific content is displayed in an additional display pane integrated with, or positioned next to, other display panes provided by the third party PIM application [column 7, lines 13-22]. Rather, the context-specific content can be provided by a database and database applications operating within a cloud-based system, or a proprietary computer system, or some other type of computer system [column 7, line 56 to column 8, line 28], and a PIM integration engine integrates the context-specific content from the cloud computing service provider’s application into the user’s PIM application [column 9, lines 12-18]. A query interface 180 receives and executes requested queries against the databases and storage components of the database system so as to return a result set, response, or other requested data in furtherance of the methodologies described, and implements an API through which queries may be executed against the databases or other data stores [column 6, lines 11-23]. Accessing such context-specific content from an entity over a network rather than on the service provider would increase storage and reduce processing time on the service provider. Since Hart discloses that features may be implemented in a computer system that includes a back-end component, such as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, such as an application server or an Internet server, or that includes a front-end component, such as a client computer having a graphical user interface or an Internet browser, or any combination thereof, where the components of the system may be connected by any form of medium of digital data communication such as a communication network [Hart, column 9, lines 10-21], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to access the insights of Hart from a database and database applications operating within a cloud-based system, as taught by O’Kane. This would increase storage and reduce processing time on the server device of Hart.
Hart-O’Kane do not expressly teach wherein each rule in the set of rules corresponds to an insight type that is different than insight types associated with other rules in the set of rules. Dayanandan discloses a system for generating a model for an application based upon requirements information for the application, where the generated model can be used by downstream consumers to automatically generate one or more implementations of the application [paragraph 60]. Requirements information includes rules that model generation system may use to determine one or more GUI screens specified for the application, and for each GUI screen, the set of user interface components included on that screen and the physical layout of the user interface components [paragraph 75, lines 1-10]. This includes rules used to identify one or more data objects to be mapped or associated with one or more screens, identify mappings between data objects components and GUI screen components, and to generate an application model storing these mappings [paragraph 75, lines 10-18]. Reference information may also include information about the various data objects that are available, the information for a data object including information such as the name (or identity) of the data object, the components (e.g., attributes, elements, or field names) of the data object, the type of data stored by the data object, connectivity and storage information for the data object, and the like [paragraph 77]. An application implementation generated based upon the application model has functionality as described in the requirements information, including information identifying a particular GUI window or screen comprising a particular set of GUI components and mapped to a particular set of data objects [paragraph 80]. This would allow application models to be more easily generated for the creation of user interfaces for a variety of different devices, platforms, and/or languages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the user interface comprising insights of Hart-O’Kane using requirements information including rules that define the layout of data objects within the interface based on attributes of the data, as taught by Dayanandan. This would allow application models to be more easily generated for the creation of user interfaces for a variety of different devices, platforms, and/or languages.
4-2. Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, wherein the application programming interface is an application programming interface of the insight providing entity, and wherein accessing the set of insights comprises receiving the set of insights from the insight providing entity using the application programming interface of the insight providing entity, by disclosing that one of more features or steps of the disclosed embodiments may be implemented using an API [Hart, column 9, lines 29-30]. A query interface 180 receives and executes requested queries against the databases and storage components of the database system so as to return a result set, response, or other requested data in furtherance of the methodologies described, and implements an API through which queries may be executed against the databases or other data stores [O’Kane, column 6, lines 11-23].
4-3. Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, wherein a first location of the spatial locations is adjacent to a location within the graphical user interface page that includes text, and wherein a second location of the spatial locations is adjacent to a location within the graphical user interface page that includes graphics, by disclosing, displaying basic insights next to text on a home screen and pinned insights inside insight cards located next to each other on the home screen [Hart, column 10, lines 22-33, figure 4A]. [Hart, Figures 4I, 4J] also show insight information displayed adjacent to text and graphics.
4-4. Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, wherein identifying the spatial locations within the graphical user interface page that are designated for displaying a subset of insights of the set of insights comprises comparing a characteristic of an insight of the set of insights to a rule definition of a rule of the set of rules, by disclosing that insight information includes characteristics such as being basic insights, pinned insights, [Hart, column 10, lines 16-20, 28-33], peer user insights [Hart, column 12, lines 24-27], and insights associated with particular historical time periods [Hart, column 12, lines 39-42]. In order for the interface to display the different types of insights at the appropriate location, there intrinsically must be a comparison to match the type of insight with the corresponding rule definition.
4-5. Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, wherein each rule in the set of rules indicates a corresponding spatial location among the spatial locations at which to position a corresponding type of insight based on criteria of a respective rule matching criteria associated with a respective insight, by disclosing that insight information includes characteristics such as being basic insights, pinned insights, [Hart, column 10, lines 16-20, 28-33], peer user insights [Hart, column 12, lines 24-27], and insights associated with particular historical time periods [Hart, column 12, lines 39-42]. In order for the interface to display the different types of insights at the appropriate location, there intrinsically must be a comparison to match the type of insight with the corresponding rule definition.
4-6. Regarding claims 6 and 13, Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein at least one transaction of the set of transactions is facilitated by the service provider, by disclosing that the client device comprises software instructions to facilitate web-shopping related processes and functions [Hart, column 7, lines 20-24].
4-7. Regarding claims 7 and 14, Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein each insight of the set of insights is associated with at least one transaction of the set of transactions, by disclosing that the one or more insights are obtained by analyzing user transaction data [Hart, column 13, lines 20-47] to formulate behavioral information that illustrate the one or more insights [Hart, columns 13, lines 55-67].
4-8. Regarding claim 20, Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach all the limitations of claim 15, wherein at least one transaction of the set of transactions is facilitated by the service provider, by disclosing that the client device comprises software instructions to facilitate web-shopping related processes and functions [Hart, column 7, lines 20-24].
Hart-O‘Kane-Dayanandan teach wherein each insight of the set of insights is associated with at least one transaction of the set of transactions, by disclosing that the one or more insights are obtained by analyzing user transaction data [Hart, column 13, lines 20-47] to formulate behavioral information that illustrate the one or more insights [Hart, columns 13, lines 55-67].
Response to Arguments
5. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that Hart et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,768,950) fails to disclose or suggest, “a first location in the graphical user interface page that is spatially separated from a second location in the graphical user interface page and positioning a first insight of the set of insights at the first location, positioning a second insight of the set of insights at the second location, and positioning a graphic at a location between the first insight and the second insight,” as has been amended to the claim.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Hart discloses that the user device presents received data describing insights at particular locations separated from each other within a page of the dynamic interface such as basic insights on a home screen with pinned insights being displayed in a particular section [column 10, lines 22-33; figure 4A], insights about peer users beneath the user’s insights [column 12, lines 15-21; figure 4I], and insights in particular locations based on date [column 12, lines 37-47; figure 4J]. As shown in [figure 4A, 4I, and 4J], a graphic of a boarder is shown between the insights.
Applicant alleges that the database system of O’Kane is not an insight providing entity and is not separate from the computing environment and communicatively coupled to the computing environment via a network, akin to how the insight providing entity is separate from the service provider, as recited in claim 1.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, O’Kane discloses that when a client device accesses a third party’s Personal Information Management (PIM) system using a web browser, app, or other GUI, a PIM application displays a user interface in the form of a web page for display in the web browser [column 6, lines 55-60]. A supplemental display pane 208 displays contextually relevant user-specific content regarding the PIM application that is specific to the particular user [column 7, lines 9-13]. The context-specific content is not provided by the third party PIM application even though the context-specific content is displayed in an additional display pane integrated with, or positioned next to, other display panes provided by the third party PIM application [column 7, lines 13-22]. Rather, the context-specific content can be provided by a database and database applications operating within a cloud-based system, or a proprietary computer system, or some other type of computer system [column 7, line 56 to column 8, line 28], and a PIM integration engine integrates the context-specific content from the cloud computing service provider’s application into the user’s PIM application [column 9, lines 12-18]. A query interface 180 receives and executes requested queries against the databases and storage components of the database system so as to return a result set, response, or other requested data in furtherance of the methodologies described, and implements an API through which queries may be executed against the databases or other data stores [column 6, lines 11-23]. Thus, the third-party’s PIM system (service provider) is separate from the system that provides the context-specific content (insight provider) [see column 7, lines 56 to column 8, line 4], and transmits the graphical user interface to the client device that is separate from the third-party’s PIM system [column 6, lines 55-60].
Similar arguments have been presented for claims 8 and 15 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein each rule in the set of rules corresponds to an insight type that is different than insight types associated with other rules in the set of rules,” as has been amended to claim 1, Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,768,950), in view of O’Kane et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,209,963), and further in view of Dayanandan (Pub. No. US 2018/0203674).
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15. However, as discussed above, Hart, in view of O’Kane, and further in view of Dayanandan are considered to teach claims 1, 8, and 15, and consequently, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118