DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 and 21 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for “a first user interface associated with a first software application executed on a computing device” AND “a second user interface associated with a second software application executed on the computing device” as amended by the response of 05/19/2026. The disclosure does not reference first and second applications being executed on the same computing device. The disclosure makes reference to first and second “computing environments” and shows them to be on separate devices each with a separate user interface (see Figure 1, elements 100 and 140 separated by network 130). The paragraphs cited for support do not define the first and second computing environments as anything other than on separate devices. Further, paragraph [0050] of the originally filed disclosure does not provide support for a second software application executed on the computing device that is executing the first software application. The disclosure describes an application of the first computing environment ([0030]) and an application of the second computing environment ([0033]).
Similarly, the originally filed disclosure does not provide support for “displaying the updated second user interface to the user via a display associated with the computing device” (emphasis added). The disclosure does not make clear that the second user interface is displayed on the computing device associated with the first user interface.
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 16-19 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 11,599,369 B1 to Zuo et al. (herein Zuo).
Habib discloses a method for generating a custom user interface (Habib: [0008]), comprising:
receiving (Habib: [0008], developer modifying end-user application; figure 3, remote localization server 210), comprising:
receiving a configuration component (Habib: figures 6, element 626, configuration component shown through saved version of localization edits from remote localization server; figure 7, element 710 receiving latest version) from a user via a first user interface associated with a first software application executed on a computing device (Habib: [0027]-[0028], developer and developer application), wherein the configuration component comprises:
a selection by the user (Habib: [0027]-[0028], developer user) of data to be included in a second user interface (Habib: figures 6, element 626, saved version of localization edits from remote localization server; figure 7, element 710 receiving latest version; [0027]-[0028]) associated with a second software application executed on a computing device (Habib: figures 3-4, user device 205 with application 410 shows the resultant second application and second user interface modified by developer; note, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view the disclosure, is a second application executed on a computing device, not the computing device);
a selection by the user of a format for displaying the selected data (Habib: [0066]-[0068], [0077]); and
a selection by the user of a schedule for updating the second user interface with updated values for the selected data (Habib: [0071], requested selectively; [0075]);
providing the configuration component to a builder component (Habib: figure 4, element 460, localization module; [0010], user device localization module receives localized content and applies);
building, via the builder component based on the providing, a second user interface associated with the second software application, the second user interface comprising the selected data according to the selected format (Habib: [0010]);
updating, via the builder component, the second user interface according to the selected
schedule (Habib: [0010]); and
displaying the updated second user interface to a user via a display associated with a computing device (Habib: [0027]).
Habib does not explicitly state displaying the updated second user interface to the user via a display associated with the computing device. Zuo demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the editor/administrator/“developer” and end-user to be the same (Zuo: 12:28-35). 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 application user interface localization customization as being configured by a user (on a device) who would then be presented with the resultant application (Habib: see [0027]) as suggested by the teachings of Zuo. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the availability of visual editing for administrator/developers and/or end-users (Zuo: 12:28-35) would allow varying skill levels of end-user to more easily also be an administrator/developer (Zuo: see also 11:21-28; 11:63-66, showing differing skill levels requiring differing setups); and both references are directed to web application development (Habib: [0008]) (Zuo: 1:18-19; 6:20-43).
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
The limitations of claims 10-13, 16-18, and 19 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 11,599,369 B1 to Zuo et al. (herein Zuo) in further 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 11,599,369 B1 to Zuo et al. (herein Zuo) in further 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Additionally, the 35 USC 112 rejections of claim 1 (on which claim 21 depends) would need to be overcome.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejections (Habib in view of Zuo) take into account the amended language, and show it would have been obvious for the same user (on a device) to configure a user interface via a first user interface and then use an application via the configured second user interface. Though, as the above rejections indicate, the disclosure does not provide support for the second application being executed on the same device. As such, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights