DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 5/11/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of amendment, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang in view of Pretlove have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yue et al. (US 2025/0355683), with priority date of 2/23/2024 (see page 40 of Appendix to application 63/557,444, step 8, where GenC can use an existing representation as opposed to generating a representation from scratch).
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) 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 12, 13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0245651), in view of Pretlove et al. (US 2006/0241792), hereinafter Pretlove, in view of Yue et al. (US 2025/0355683), hereinafter Yue.
As per claim 1, Wang teaches the following:
a method, comprising:
receiving, via a user interface, a request from a user, wherein the request is associated with an
processing the request to identify an intent of the request based at least in part on a context . As Wang further teaches in paragraph [0491], steps 2402 and 2403, the system analyzes the request using machine learning algorithms and natural language processing to understand the user’s intent and may further analyze various factors such as preferences, environment, and a context of the request;
generating a prompt designed to elicit a response from a generative artificial intelligence (GAI) model, wherein the prompt comprises:
the context
a request to generate new user interface functionality in a form of executable code for performing the action corresponding to the intent. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0491], step 2404, the system predicts the most appropriate UI;
receiving, in response to submitting the prompt to the GAI model, the new user interface functionality; and executing the new user interface functionality. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0492], the most appropriate UI is displayed.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach of the device being an industrial device. In a similar field of endeavor, Pretlove teaches of a method of generating user interfaces (see abstract). Pretlove further teaches in paragraph [0001] that user interfaces may be generated for monitoring and/or controlling an industrial device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations. Further note that as Pretlove teaches of generating control images that did not previously exist, this is interpreted as being “new user interface functionality”.
Furthermore, Wang does not teach of determining if a UI that performs an intended functionality exists and generating a new UI in response to the functionality not existing. In a similar field of endeavor, Yue teaches of a method of generating interfaces using a machine learning model (see abstract). Yue further teaches in paragraph [0084] that “When generating a new layer element, the software server 110 may search the database for similar existing implementations to determine whether to reuse one or more layer elements from the database. The software server 110 may analyze the interface specifications and adaptation requirements of the identified layer element and/or UI component to determine if they can be effectively reused in the new context. In some embodiments, the software server 110 may not identify an existing layer element or a UI component to reuse, or the software server 110 may determine that adapting an existing layer element may require extensive modifications, the software server 110 may generate a new layer element.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the interface generation of Wang with the element reuse determination of Yue. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the reuse method of Yue would benefit users of Wang in not requiring the generation of brand new UI elements at every step, thus reducing processor load.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Wang does not explicitly teach of determining if preprogrammed functionality exists. Yue further teaches the following:
searching preprogrammed functionality for the preprogrammed user interface functionality, wherein determining that the preprogrammed user interface functionality is not available is in response to the searching the preprogrammed functionality returning a negative response. As Yue teaches in paragraph [0084], “When generating a new layer element, the software server 110 may search the database for similar existing implementations to determine whether to reuse one or more layer elements from the database” and “In some embodiments, the software server 110 may not identify an existing layer element or a UI component to reuse”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the interface generation of Wang with the element reuse determination of Yue. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the reuse method of Yue would benefit users of Wang in not requiring the generation of brand new UI elements at every step, thus reducing processor load.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Wang further teaches the following:
the request comprises a spoken request. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0165], the system allows the AI to process spoken language input from users.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Wang further teaches the following:
wherein executing the user interface functionality comprises: transmitting, to a device providing the user interface, response instructions to emit a natural language audio signal associated with the new user interface functionality via a speaker communicatively coupled to the device. Wang teaches in paragraph [0150] that NLG module 205 is responsible for generating speech output. Further see paragraph [0208].
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Wang does not explicitly teach of industrial devices. Pretlove teaches the following:
wherein the context comprises a type of the industrial device, an operation performed by the industrial device in an industrial process, a parameter used by the industrial device, a status of the industrial device, connectivity of the industrial device to other industrial devices, standard operating procedures associated with the industrial device, historical audit data for the industrial device, past interaction information for the industrial device, or a combination thereof. As Pretlove teaches in paragraph [0072] and [0073], an interface may include various data including an “On line” parameter 83 (connectivity to other devices), readings such as different measurements (status of device), trends, maintenance history, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Wang does not explicitly teach of industrial devices. Pretlove teaches the following:
wherein the action comprises rendering modifications to the user interface, displaying a status in the user interface for the industrial device, determining a value for a metric of the industrial device, displaying a determined value for a metric of the industrial device in the user interface, triggering a process of the industrial device, triggering entry into a state of the industrial device, configuring a parameter of the industrial device, or a combination thereof. As Pretlove teaches in paragraph [0072] and [0073], an interface may include various data including metric values and status.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations.
As per claim 10, Wang teaches the following:
an
one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored thereon instructions that. See paragraph [0501].
However, Wang does not explicitly teach of the device being an industrial device. In a similar field of endeavor, Pretlove teaches of a method of generating user interfaces (see abstract). Pretlove further teaches in paragraph [0001] that user interfaces may be generated for monitoring and/or controlling an industrial device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations.
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 11-13, 17 and 18, modified Wang teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 12, 13, 17, and 18 are substantially similar to those of claims 2- 4, 8, and 9 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 19, Wang teaches the following:
A computer-readable memory device having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors. See paragraph [0501].
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, modified Wang teaches the device of claim 19 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pretlove in view of Yue as applied to claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0097158), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Wang further teaches the following:
translating the spoken request to a textual request. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0165], the speech recognition module 203 is responsible for converting spoken language into written text.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach of correlating a voice with a user. Lee teaches the following:
in response to receiving the spoken request, evaluating, by a voice recognition engine, the spoken request, wherein the evaluating comprises: correlating a voice identified from the spoken request with the user and an associated set of user credentials for the user; authenticating the user based on the user credentials. As Lee teaches in the abstract, in response to receiving a voice command, voice print information is searched in order to identify and authenticate a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the voice input of Wang with the user identification method of Lee. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Wang expresses a desire for authentication methods in paragraph [0218], which states the AI implements proper authentication and authorization protocols, and the authentication method of Lee would provide such security.
Regarding claim 14, modified Wang teaches the system of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to those of claim 5 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pretlove in view of Yue as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Amit et al. (US 2018/0131719), hereinafter Amit.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Wang does not explicitly teach of performing an execution analysis. Amit teaches the following:
in response to receiving the user interface functionality, performing an execution analysis of the user interface functionality based on the context of the industrial device, a set of user credentials associated with the user, the request, the user interface functionality, or a combination thereof. As Amit teaches in paragraph [0103], and corresponding Fig. 2E, at step 202 a packet is issued by an app over a network (in response to receiving functionality). As Amit teaches in paragraph [0105], in response to receiving the packet, a threat level is determined, where the threat level may consider a transmitting device not complying with corporate regulations (context of device), a user operating the transmitting device, based on an estimation whether the device is operated by a different user than an authorized user which may be determined using biometric identification methods (user credentials), and/or based on anomalous behavior detection (the request or user interface functionality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the user interface provision of Wang with the security protocols of Amit. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Wang shows a clear desire for security measures in paragraph [0084], and the security measures of Amit would further such security.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 6 as described above. However, as described above, Wang does not explicitly teach of performing an execution analysis. Amit teaches the following:
wherein the execution analysis comprises: determining whether a breach is identified, wherein the determining comprises: blocking execution of the user interface functionality based on determining a breach is identified; and allowing execution of the user interface functionality based on determining no breach is identified. As Amit teaches in paragraph [0106], packets associated with an exploitation of a security breach may be blocked. As Amit further shows in Fig. 2E, packets which are determined not to be a security threat are not blocked in step 275.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the user interface provision of Wang with the security protocols of Amit. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Wang shows a clear desire for security measures in paragraph [0084], and the security measures of Amit would further such security.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Wang teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 15 and 16 are substantially similar to those of claims 6 and 7 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
