DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application 18/622,484, which was filed on 03/29/2024, listing the inventors as Curtis Badke and Samuel Nesbitt and the applicant as Intuit Inc.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0098261 A1 to Habib et al. (herein Habib).
Claim 1
Habib discloses a method for generating a custom user interface (Habib: [0008]), comprising:
providing, via a first computing environment (Habib: [0008], figure 3, remote localization server 210), a configuration component (Habib: figures 6, element 626, saved version of localization edits from remote localization server; figure 7, element 710 receiving latest version) to a builder component (Habib: figure 4, element 460, localization module; [0010], user device localization module receives localized content and applies), wherein the configuration component comprises:
an indication of data to be included (Habib: figures 6, element 626, saved version of localization edits from remote localization server; figure 7, element 710 receiving latest version) in a user interface associated with a second computing environment (Habib: figures 3-4, user device 205);
a specified format for displaying the data (Habib: [0066]-[0068], [0077]); and
a specified schedule for updating the user interface with additional data (Habib: [0071] and [0075]);
building, via the builder component, a user interface comprising the indicated data according to the specified format (Habib: [0010]);
updating, via the builder component, the user interface with the additional data to produce an updated user interface (Habib: [0010]); and
displaying the updated user interface via a display associated with a computing device (Habib: [0027]).
To the extent Habib does not explicitly state the configuration component comprises a specified schedule for updating the user interface with additional data. Habib does show that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for update scheduling to be controlled by the server (claimed first computing environment) (Habib: [0071], [0075]) and/or for updates to be controlled by the localization module (claimed builder component) (Habib: [0071], [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the localization edits versions (claimed configuration component) with including the specified schedule as suggested by the teachings of Habib. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: including scheduling in the transmitted localization versions to be an efficient/convenient mechanism for transmitting server instructions for updating; doing so is consistent with Habib’s teachings of server and/or localization module controlling the update scheduling; and the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result.
Claim 2
Habib discloses the method of claim 1, wherein updating the user interface with the additional data comprises replacing particular data within the user interface with the additional data based on the specified schedule (Habib: [0027], changing interface to Spanish; [0071], [0075]).
Claim 3
Habib discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specified format comprises a table (Habib: figures 9 and 11, show the format being in the form of various simple tables; see figure 11, three screen view to the right, showing one column listing “table” of items).
Claim 4
Habib discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the user interface comprises selections from one or more tables (Habib: figures 9 and 11; note at least figure 11, second from right view showing selectable “>” icons).
Claim 7
Habib discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specified format comprises a format associated with the first computing environment (Habib: figures 8-11, show the format is associated with the first computing environment, in that a representation of it is manipulated in the first environment).
Claim 8
Habib discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specified schedule indicates a periodicity at which updates are made (Habib: [0071], [0075]).
Claim 9
Habib discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the builder component updates the user interface based on detecting a change in the configuration component (Habib: [0010], versions differ).
Claims 10-13, 16-18, and 19-20
The limitations of claims 10-13, 16-18, and 19-20 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-4 and 7-9 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner. Further, Habib discloses an implementation using processors and memory with executable instructions (Habib: [0094]-[0100]).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0098261 A1 to Habib et al. (herein Habib) in view of US 2014/0282480 A1 to Matthew et al. (herein Matthew).
Claim 5
Habib shows the method of claim 1, wherein, upon receiving an indication from a user to stop updating a user interface content item within the user interface, the builder component ceases updating the user interface content item according to the specified schedule (Habib: [0071]; [0075], updates may be “manual user election” as opposed to various other scheduled/automatic means).
Habib dose not explicitly state “the builder … modifies the user interface content item to indicate that updates have been ceased”. However, Matthew demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a user interface to indicate that updates are ceased (Matthew: figure 10, element 1050; [0092]-[0096], the badge displaying the number of updates that are available shows updates not occurring). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the user interface, controlled by the localization module (claimed builder component), with being modified to display updates that are available, that is to say updates not being applied or where update application is ceased, as suggested by the teachings of Matthew. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: both Habib and Matthew are directed toward updates and user interfaces; the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result; and since Habib teaches updates can be manually applied, Matthew’s display/reminder of updates being ceased would be beneficial for ensuring updates are applied.
Claim 14
The limitations of claim 14 correspond to the limitations of claim 5 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0098261 A1 to Habib et al. (herein Habib) in view of US 2015/0347102 A1 to Lattner et al. (herein Lattner).
Claim 6
Habib discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first computing environment is based on a first programming language (Habib: [0062], xCode development environment), the second computing environment is based on a second programming language (Habib: [0062], iOS applications), and the builder component is configured to serve as an interface between the first computing environment and the second computing environment (Habib: [0062], localization module as an SDK).
To the extent Habib does not explicitly state the first and second languages are different, Lattner demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for xcode development to use multiple languages and for components to interface between those multiple languages (Lattner: [0094], [0110]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Xcode or other components of the development server (first environment) of Habib in the Swift or Objective C language, and to implement the user device (second environment) of Habib in the other language, while the localization module (builder component) interfaces between the two as suggested by the teachings of Lattner. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result; both Habib and Lattner are directed to Xcode development and environments; and such an arrangement beneficially allows existing code to continue to be used with newer code (Lattner: [0094]).
Claim 15
The limitations of claim 15 correspond to the limitations of claim 6 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992