UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO.
18/664,287
FILING DATE
05/15/2024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
HUANING CAI
490083.448
CONFIRMATION NO.
1002
209465
7590
03/20/2026
Seed IP Law Group LLP/Microsoft (490083)
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
BUI, HANH ΤΗΙ ΜΙΝΗ
ART UNIT
2192
PAPER NUMBER
NOTIFICATION DATE
DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2026
ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
msdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Office Action Summary
Application No.
18/664,287
Applicant(s)
CAl et al.
Examiner
Art Unit
HANH T BUI
2192
AIA (First Inventor to
File) Status Yes
-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
Period for Reply
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
date of this communication.
If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
Status
1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on May 15, 2024.
2a) ☐ A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
2b) ☑ This action is non-final.
3) ☐ This action is FINAL.
4) ☐ An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
on; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
5) ☐ Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
Disposition of Claims*
6) Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
7) 5a) Of the above claim(s)
Claim(s)
is/are withdrawn from consideration.
8)
Claim(s)
is/are allowed.
9) Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
10) Claim(s)
is/are objected to.
11) Claim(s)
are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
Application Papers
12) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
13) The drawing(s) filed on May 15, 2024 is/are: a)☑ accepted or b) ☐ objected to by the Examiner.
Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
14)
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Certified copies:
a) All b) Some** c) None of the:
Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
1.
2.
Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
3.
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
Attachment(s)
1) ☑ Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
2) ☐ Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
Paper No(s)/Mail Date
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
Office Action Summary
3) ☐ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
Paper No(s)/Mail Date
Other:
Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20260309
Page 2
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
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
1.
This is the initial office action based on the application filed May 15th, 2024, which
claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
2.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of
which, claims 1, 8, and 16 are presented in independent form.
3.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied
to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations
are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations
within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the
references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well
as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
4.
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 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.
Page 3
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Internet E-mail
5.
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner's
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner's Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
6.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that claims 16-20 recite "A hardware storage device having
stored thereon computer executable instructions..." and does not explicitly exclude
transitory signals per se. However, application's specification discloses "A storage
device 812, 846, 870 may be a computer-readable medium that does not contain
propagating signals, such as modulated data signals transmitted through a carrier
wave... The computer-readable storage media does not pertain to propagated signals,
such as modulated data signals transmitted through a carrier wave." (See paragraphs
[0065] – [0066]). As such, the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC § 101 for at least
the reasons noted above.
Page 4
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Claim Objections
7.
Claims 1-7, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user interface adheres to the
specification of the visual feature” in lines 20-21. It should be -- the user interface
adheres to the design specification of the visual feature -- for the purpose of further
examination.
b. Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein obtain a natural language
description" in line 1. It should be -- wherein obtain [[a]]the natural language description
for the purpose of further examination.
C. Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein generate a natural language
description" in line 1. It should be -- wherein generate [[a]]the natural language
description -- for the purpose of further examination.
d. Claims 4-7: are dependent on claim 1 but not cure the deficiencies of that
claim. Accordingly, they are objected for the same reasons.
e. Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein representing, in a natural language
description, a visual image of an implementation of the user interface in natural
language" in lines 1-2. It should be -- wherein representing, in [[a]]the natural language
description, [[a]]the visual image of [[an]]the implementation of the user interface in
natural language -- for the purpose of further examination.
f.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the large language model” in line
1. It should be -- wherein the first large language model -- for the purpose of further
examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Page 5
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9.
Claims 3-4, 11-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
a. Claim 3 recites the limitation "generate a prompt for the visual large
language model to generate the natural language text, wherein the prompt comprises
the visual image" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if the prompt refers to a prompt to a large
language model (See claim 1, line 13) or a prompt for the visual large language model
(See claim 3, line 4).
b.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 but not cure the deficiencies of that claim.
Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for the same reason.
C.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "receiving the natural language description
of the test case from the second large language model in response to the prompt" in
lines 5-6. It is unclear if the prompt refers to a first prompt to a large language model
(See claim 8, line 8) or a second prompt to a second large language model (See claim
11, line 3).
d.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 but not cure the deficiencies of that claim.
Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason.
e.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "wherein the large language model is a
neural transformer model with attention" in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the large language
model refers to the first or second large language model (See claim 16).
Page 6
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10.
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.
11.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it
has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not
recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the
claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published
in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category
of machines; Claims 8-15 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category
of processes; and Claims 16-20 are directed to hardware storage device and falls within
the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, "Are the claims to a
process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1,
whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and
further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1: the claim recites the limitations of "
Page 7
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
a) select a visual feature from the design specification of the user interface to
test, wherein the visual feature pertains to a graphic component of the user interface
specified to appear in the user interface in accordance with the design specification;
b)
obtain a natural language description of the design specification of the
visual feature;
c)
obtain a visual image of an implementation of the user interface;
d)
generate natural language description of the visual image of the
implementation of the user interface;
e) generate a prompt to a large language model, wherein the prompt
comprises an instruction for the large language model to determine whether the visual
image of the implementation of the user interface adheres to the design specification of
the visual feature, wherein the large language model is given the natural language
description of the visual image of the implementation of the user interface and the
natural language description of the design specification of the visual feature;
f)
obtain from the large language model, given the prompt, a response,
wherein the response indicates whether or not the implementation of the user interface
adheres to the specification of the visual feature;
g) obtain from the response a suggested repair when non-compliance to the
design specification of the visual feature is determined; and
h)
upon the large language model indicating that the implementation of the
user interface fails to adhere to the design specification of the visual feature, generate a
repair."
Step 2A Prong 1:
Page 8
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Steps (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the
aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "a system," "a user
interface," "a processor," "a memory," "visual feature," "graphic component of the user
interface," "visual image," and "large language model,” which are merely recitations of
generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using
(see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical
application. Furthermore, steps (e), (f) and (h) are merely applying the abstract idea and
field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has
been concluded that claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is
directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into
practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Page 9
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2: the claim recites additional element recitations of "generate
natural language text describing the visual image of the visual feature of the
implementation of the user interface from a visual large language model” which is
merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does
not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 2 does not
recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to
integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to
significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to
the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails
Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3: the claim recites additional element recitations of "generate a
prompt for the visual large language model to generate the natural language text,
wherein the prompt comprises the visual image of the implementation of the user
interface" which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP §
2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Page 10
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same
reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether
additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong
2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into
practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein the
visual large language model is a neural transformer model with attention trained on
visual and text data" which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see
MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical
application. Moreover, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the
same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether
additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong
2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into
practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein the
visual feature pertains to an accessibility requirement, wherein the accessibility
requirement specifies a font size or a graphic component size” which is merely a field of
use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the
judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other
Page 11
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into
practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more,
claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial
exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as
not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein the
visual feature pertains to a localization requirement, wherein the localization
requirement specifies a natural language, local currency usage, local time format, left-
to-right reading convention, or right-to-left convention, or wherein the visual feature
pertains to placement of graphic components in a graphic layout of the user interface"
which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover,
claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as
above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional
elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the
claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical
application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6
does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein the
program comprises instructions that when executed by the processor performs acts that
Page 12
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
update the implementation of the user interface according to the repair” which is merely
a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not
integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 7 does not
recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to
integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to
significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to
the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails
Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8: the claim recites the limitations "
a) providing a test case from a design specification of the user interface to
test, wherein the test case pertains to localization requirements of the user interface for
a particular geographic region;
b)
obtaining a natural language description of the test case;
c)
representing, in a natural language description, a visual image of an
implementation of the user interface;
d)
generating a first prompt to a first large language model, wherein the first
prompt comprises an instruction for the first large language model to determine whether
the visual image of the implementation of the user interface adheres to the natural
language description of the test case, wherein the first large language model is given
the natural language description of the visual image of the implementation of the user
interface and the natural language description of the test case;
Page 13
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
e) determining from a response obtained from the first large language model,
given the first prompt, whether or not the implementation of the user interface adheres
to the localization requirements of the user interface;
f)
obtaining from the response a suggested repair when non-compliance of
the localization requirements is determined; and
g) upon the first large language model indicating that the implementation of
the user interface fails to adhere to the localization requirements, outputting the
suggested repair."
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a), (b), (c), and (f) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of
pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 8: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "a computer-implemented
method," "a user interface,” “test case,” “visual image," and "large language model,”
which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely
applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a
judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (d), (e) and (g) are
merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Page 14
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has
been concluded that claim 8 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is
directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into
practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 8: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 8 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein the
first large language model is trained on natural language data" which is merely a field of
use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the
judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other
additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into
practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more,
claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial
exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as
not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Page 15
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Regarding claim 10: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the first large language model is trained on natural language data and visual data"
which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover,
claim 10 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as
above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional
elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus
the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical
application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim
10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11: the claim recites additional element recitations of
"generating a second prompt to a second large language model comprising a snapshot
of the test case; and receiving the natural language description of the test case from the
second large language model in response to the prompt" which is merely a field of
use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the
judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 11 does not recite any other
additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into
practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more,
claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial
exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as
Page 16
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the second large language model is trained on natural language and visual data” which
is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does
not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 12 does
not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard
to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to
significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to
the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails
Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13: the claim recites additional element recitations of "creating a
snapshot of the implementation of the user interface; generating a third prompt to a
visual large language model, wherein the third prompt comprises the snapshot of the
implementation of the user interface; and receiving the natural language description of
the snapshot of the implementation of the user interface" which is merely a field of
use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the
judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 13 does not recite any other
additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into
practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more,
Page 17
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
claim 13 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial
exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as
not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 14: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the localization requirements specify a natural language, a left-to-right reading
convention, local currency, local time format, or a right-to-left reading convention” which
is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does
not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 14 does
not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard
to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to
significantly more, claim 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to
the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails
Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 15: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the large language model is a neural transformer model with attention” which is merely
a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not
integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 15 does not
recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to
integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to
Page 18
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
significantly more, claim 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to
the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails
Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16: the claim recites the limitations "
a) employ a first large language model to generate a natural language
description of a specification of a design feature of a user interface from a snapshot of
the specification of the design feature;
b) employ the first large language model to generate a natural language
description of an implementation of the user interface from a snapshot of the
implementation of the user interface;
c) employ a second large language model to determine whether the
implementation of the user interface adheres to the specification of the design feature,
wherein the second large language model is given the natural language description of
the implementation of the user interface and the natural language description of the
design feature; and
d)
upon the second large language model determining that the
implementation of the user interface fails to comply with the specification of the design
feature, output a repair that remedies the failure."
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a) and (b) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and
paper (mental process).
Page 19
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "a hardware storage
device having stored thereon computer executable instructions" "a processor," "a
computing device" "a design feature of a user interface," "a snapshot," "a first large
language model," and "a second large language model,” which are merely recitations of
generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using
(see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical
application. Furthermore, steps (c) and (d) are merely applying the abstract idea and
field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has
been concluded that claim 8 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is
directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into
practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 16: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Page 20
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Page 20
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 16 does not
recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 17: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the first large language model is trained on visual images and natural language data"
which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover,
claim 17 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as
above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional
elements amount to significantly more, claim 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus
the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical
application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim
17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 18: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the second large language model is trained on natural language data" which is merely a
field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not
integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 18 does not
recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to
integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Page 21
significantly more, claim 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to
the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails
Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 19: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the large language model is a neural transformer model with attention” which is merely
a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not
integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 19 does not
recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to
integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to
significantly more, claim 19 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to
the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails
Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 20: the claim recites additional element recitations of "wherein
the design feature pertains to a page layout, text font size, color/contrast, font weight,
font decoration, font capitalization, background color, border, shadows, border-radius,
spacing in and around text, bounding region size, animation or motion effects, layout
position, visual grouping, length of statements, wordiness of statement, left-to-right
alignment of text, tone of images, natural language, or text and shapes used in the user
interface" which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP §
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Page 22
2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Moreover, claim 20 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same
reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether
additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 20 also fails both Step 2A prong
2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into
practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. After searching and analyzing, examiner concluded that the claimed invention
has been recited in such a manner that independent claims 1, 8, and 16 are not taught
by any prior reference found through search.
13. Resolving the claim objection, 35 USC § 112, second paragraph rejection, and
35 USC § 101 rejection would put the case in condition for allowance.
14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
a.
Hsieh et al. (Pub. No.: US 20250335263) discloses generating a
structured definition of a graph of the workflow using a language model based on the
natural language description of the workflow and the description of the one or more
APIs. One or more nodes in the structured definition of the graph of the workflow is
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Page 23
mapped to at least one of the one or more APIs. The structured definition of the graph
of the workflow is output.
b.
Acharya et al. (Pub. No.: US 2025/0045148) discloses automatically
detecting and repairing reliability issues in operating systems and applications using a
generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) system. In examples, a generative Al system
receives a request to evaluate a detected issue in a software service or application. In
response, the system analyzes error information associated with the detected issue to
build an error context for the software code that caused the detected issue. The error
context is used to identify the location of the software code file that comprises the
software code. The error context and the software code file are used to identify a
prompt. The prompt, the error context, and/or the identified software code are provided
as input to a language model. The language model provides an output that is
responsive to the user request and may perform actions to further evaluate or repair the
detected issue.
C.
Cragun et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0193091) discloses evaluating
accessibility compliance of a user interface design such as receiving, from a first
application executing in a client data processing system, a hierarchy of elements of a
user interface, wherein a second application presents the user interface including a set
of user interface elements at the client data processing system; selecting a compliance
rule from a set of compliance rules; evaluating, using a processor and a memory,
whether an attribute associated with a user interface element meets a condition
specified in the compliance rule and reporting, responsive to the evaluating being
negative, the user interface element as being non-compliant with the compliance rule.
Application/Control Number: 18/664,287
Art Unit: 2192
Page 24
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is
(571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
16. 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.
17.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number
for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
March 17th, 2026
Prosecution Insights