DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a method, therefore is a process.
“ . . . generating, using the API specification and the configuration information, a client library in a typescript format; generating, based on a templatized file and using the client library, an application component for an application to be used by the client device “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “obtaining . . . obtaining . . . providing … ”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “obtaining . . . obtaining . . . providing …”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of: information about operating system configuration of the client device, information about browser used by the client device, and information about hardware of the client device “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Barboza. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 1. “the generating of the application component is initiated by the client device “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Ecimovic. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 1. “ wherein the application component further comprises at least one of: a typescript file, a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) file, and a Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) file. “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Ecimovic. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein the templatized file comprises information about the API specification organized based on a template, wherein the template is in the typescript format“ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Sarukkai. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 6, see rejection on claim 1. “the application component is stored in the API library as a second API specification “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Dewhare. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein the API specification comprises a set of objects, a schema for relating each of the set of objects, and a representational state contract. “ “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Ecimovic. The claim is ineligible.
As per claims 8-14, see rejection on claims 1-7.
As per claim 15-18, see rejections on claims 1-4.
As per claim 19-20, see rejections on claims 6-7.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halimi et al (Halimi, Wissam, et al. "Enabling the automatic generation of user interfaces for remote laboratories." Online Engineering & Internet of Things: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation REV 2017, held 15-17 March 2017, Columbia University, New York, USA. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017) (hereinafter Halimi) in view of Ecimovic et al (US 2022/0398138) (hereinafter Ecimovic).
As per claim 1, Halimi teaches:
A method for generating application components, the method comprising:
obtaining an application programming interface (API) specification from an API library (Halimi, 5.2 Implementation—under BRI, application programming interface (API) specification can be configurations);
obtaining configuration information from a client device (Halimi, 5.2 Implementation—under BRI, configuration information can be checked box info);
generating, using the API specification and the configuration information, a client library (Halimi, 6 Teacher Customization—under BRI, a client library can be the generated code);
generating, based on a templatized file and using the client library, an application component for an application to be used by the client device, wherein the application component comprises an user interface (UI) component (Halimi, 6 Teacher Customization—under BRI, an application component for an application cab be personalized UI appearance to fit their taste and needs; a templatized file can teachers’ customized inputs) ; and
providing the application component to the client device (Halimi, Fig. 6. Example of personalized Mach-Zehnder OS widget in grasp).
Halimi does not expressly teach:
wherein the client library is in a typescript format;
However, Ecimovic discloses:
wherein the client library is in a typescript format (Ecimovic, [0023]);
Both Ecimovic and Halimi pertain to the art of UI development.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ecimovic’s method to use a typescript because it is well-known in the art that the primary benefit of TypeScript is compile-time error detection through optional static typing, which surfaces software bugs directly in your editor before the code ever runs in production.
As per claim 3, Halimi/Ecimovic teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the generating of the application component is initiated by the client device (Halimi, 6 Teacher Customization).
As per claim 4, Halimi/Ecimovic teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the application component further comprises at least one of: a typescript file, a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) file, and a Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) file (Ecimovic, [0023]).
As per claim 7, Halimi/Ecimovic teaches:
The method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the API specification comprises a set of objects, a schema for relating each of the set of objects, and a representational state contract (Halimi, 5.2 Implementation—under BRI, a set of objects can be a set of configurations).
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 7.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halimi/Ecimovic as applied above, and further in view of Barboza et al (US 2024/0004781 ) (hereinafter Barboza).
As per claim 2, Halimi/Ecimovic teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Halimi/Ecimovic does not expressly teach:
wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of:
information about operating system configuration of the client device, information about browser used by the client device, and information about hardware of the client device.
However, Barboza discloses:
wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of:
information about operating system configuration of the client device, information about browser used by the client device, and information about hardware of the client device (Barboza, [0014]).
Both Barboza and Halimi/Ecimovic pertain to the art of UI development.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Barboza’s method to specify browser in configurations because it is well-known in the art that specifying a target browser in configuration ensures stability, prevents unexpected pop-ups, bypasses strict corporate restrictions, and allows your automation scripts to use already-authenticated login sessions.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 2.
Claims 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halimi/Ecimovic as applied above, and further in view of Sarukkai et al (US 2025/0190287) (hereinafter Sarukkai).
As per claim 5, Halimi/Ecimovic teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the template is in the typescript format (Ecimovic, [0023]).
Halimi/Ecimovic does not expressly teach:
wherein the templatized file comprises information about the API specification organized based on a template;
However, Sarukkai discloses:
wherein the templatized file comprises information about the API specification organized based on a template (Sarukkai, [0036]);
Both Sarukkai and Halimi/Ecimovic pertain to the art of API development.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sarukkai’s method to use information about the API specification organized based on a template because it is well-known in the art that organizing your API specification around a standardized template provides concrete benefits. It improves the developer experience, creates predictable consistency across all team projects, and eliminates the "blank page" problem—allowing developers to focus on the API's function rather than formatting
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 5.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halimi/Ecimovic as applied above, and further in view of Dewhare et al (US 2023/0244552 ) (hereinafter Dewhare).
As per claim 6, Halimi/Ecimovic teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Halimi/Ecimovic does not expressly teach:
wherein the application component is stored in the API library as a second API specification.
However, Dewhare discloses:
wherein the application component is stored in the API library as a second API specification (Dewhare, [0066]).
Both Dewhare and Halimi/Ecimovic pertain to the art of API development.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dewhare’s method to use API specification libraries because it is well-known in the art that using API specification libraries significantly accelerates development by enabling a design-first workflow, automated code generation, and instant documentation.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12028323 teaches a method of generating user interfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights