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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 4/18/2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 9, 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ferreyra; Alexis et al. US Pat. No. 11,262,888 (Ferreyra).
Claim 1:
Ferreyra teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a context of a request associated with at least one item, wherein the context is determined based at least in part on: (i) at least one action, from among a plurality of actions, associated with the at least one item [Col. 6, Ln. 5-30] (requested to view item information for a shirt item could be “one action”) [Col. 5, Ln. 40-68] (user selects preview) [Col. 12, Ln. 8-26] (context information), and (ii) at least one state, from among a plurality of states, associated with the at least one item [Col. 10, Ln. 62 – Col. 12, Ln. 26] (FIG. 5 is an illustrative graphical representation of a tree structure 500 that may be traversed by the message instruction rendering system 320 in order to select a template based on contextual attribute information);
obtaining a template for the request based at least in part on the determined context, wherein the template specifies a functionality of at least one user interface element based at least in part on the determined context [Col. 12, Ln. 27-44] (traverse a tree structure or other template selection data structure or logic to identify a template for context-specific rendering in the given context); and
generating a component for a user interface of a device associated with the request using the template, wherein the user interface controls the functionality of the at least one user interface element based on the component [Col. 12, Ln. 45-68] (renderer may generate the requested view fragment or other content fragment or portion by applying template logic and/or formatting specified in the template to the provided data from the message instruction object);
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory [Col.13 , Ln. 30-38] (processor and memory).
Claim 2:
Ferreyra teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a tree data structure comprising a first set of nodes corresponding to respective ones of the plurality of actions, a second set of nodes corresponding to respective ones of the plurality of states, and a third set of nodes, wherein a given node in the third set comprises a given template corresponding to a given one of the plurality of states and a given one of the plurality of actions [Col. 6, Ln. 5-30] (requested to view item information for a shirt item) [Col. 5, Ln. 40-68] (user selects preview) [Col. 12, Ln. 8-26] (obtain context information) [Col. 10, Ln. 62 – Col. 12, Ln. 26] (FIG. 5 is an illustrative graphical representation of a tree structure 500 that may be traversed by the message instruction rendering system 320 in order to select a template based on contextual attribute information).
Claim 3:
Ferreyra teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the template for the request is obtained from the tree data structure based on the determined context [Col. 12, Ln. 27-44] (traverse a tree structure or other template selection data structure or logic to identify a template for context-specific rendering in the given context).
Claims 9-11, 16-18:
Claim(s) 9, 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 16 is a “system” claim and claim 9 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 10, 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 11, 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
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) 4-8, 12-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreyra; Alexis et al. US Pat. No. 11,262,888 (Ferreyra) in view of Vidnovic; John et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0379741 (Vidnovic).
Claim 4:
Ferreyra teaches all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Ferreyra does not appear to explicitly disclose “a subscription”.
However, the disclosure of Vidnovic teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of states corresponds to respective timeframes related to a configuration of at least one of a subscription and a product [¶ 0204-207, 221-223, 241-243, 256, 260-273] (Figs. 6I-6L, 6Y-6Z, one month and one year could be considered “timeframes”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of rendering a user interface based on context-independent data and a template in Ferreyra and the method of subscription management user interface in Vidnovic, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of subscription management user interface in Vidnovic could be applied to the user interface based on context-independent data and a template in Ferreyra. Ferreyra and Vidnovic are similar devices because each are user interfaces to handle user requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it “improves the user's experience with the device and decreases user interaction time” [Vidnovic: ¶ 0004].
Claim 5:
The combination of Ferreyra and Vidnovic discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Vidnovic, which teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions comprises at least one of: creating a subscription, modifying a subscription, and canceling a subscription [¶ 0195-196] (start subscription) [¶ 0204-207, 221-223, 241-243, 256, 260-273] (Figs. 6I-6L, 6Y-6Z, change the time period could be “modifying”, cancel subscription).
Claim 6:
The combination of Ferreyra and Vidnovic discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Vidnovic, which teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one user interface element is configured to control an adjustment of at least one feature corresponding to a configuration of at least one of a subscription and a product [¶ 0195-196] (start subscription) [¶ 0204-207, 221-223, 241-243, 256, 260-273] (Figs. 6I-6L, 6Y-6Z, change the time period could be “modifying”, cancel subscription).
Claim 7:
The combination of Ferreyra and Vidnovic discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Vidnovic, which teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the functionality of the at least one user interface element is controlled by restricting the adjustment of the at least one feature [¶ 0294-296] (only displaying the subscription alert when the last application that utilizes the subscription is deleted from the electronic device allows the electronic device to only display the subscription alert when it is likely to be needed).
Claim 8:
The combination of Ferreyra and Vidnovic discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Vidnovic, which teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the functionality of the at least one user interface element is controlled by enabling the adjustment of the at least one feature [¶ 0195-196] (start subscription) [¶ 0204-207, 221-223, 241-243, 256, 260-273] (Figs. 6I-6L, 6Y-6Z, change the time period could be “adjustment”, cancel subscription).
Claims 12-15, 19-20:
Claim(s) 12, 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Gupta; Kapil et al. US 20240112237 teaches: user interface (UI) templates with decision trees that dynamically drive a consumer interaction.
Jacob; Aby et al. US 20190377669 decision tree algorithm in line with the application flow is used to identify and render the relevant static element (template), and overlay the dynamic content to regenerate/recreate the state/appearance of the GUI and user interaction at any given instant of time in the past.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 4:
Vidnovic; John et al. US 20240406705 teaches: subscription management user interface, cancel subscription, , change the status of a subscription.
Villanueva Gaviola; Haya Iris et al. US 20220391482 teaches: user interfaces, and more specifically to techniques for enrolling, managing, and using digital credentials, including digital identification credentials.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov