DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-40 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31, 34, 35, and 38is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saragadam et al. (US 2025/0244972 A1) and further in view of Baijal et al. (US 2020/0394451 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Saragadam discloses a computing system for dynamic generation of application experience employing a dynamic application experience generation platform, the computing system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured for (Paragraph 0010):
receiving a user specification comprising one or more design elements, user preference configuration document, or templates associated with user experience (UX) or user interface (UI) content (Fig. 15 element 1500, Paragraph 0152, Paragraph 0162 lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0262: receiving a GUI design specification);
parsing the user specification to select one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems to be used to generate the UX or UI content (Fig. 15 element 1502 and 1504, Paragraph 0193, Paragraph 0196, Paragraph 0203 lines 5-10, Paragraph 0204, Paragraph 0263, and Paragraph 0264: specification is traversed to identify GUI components and select an LLM for obtaining properties and output an implementation-neutral design format);
engineering one or more prompts for the selected generative AI systems based on the user specification (Paragraph 0204 and Paragraph 0205: a prompt template is selected and a prompt is generated using the template);
submitting the one or more prompts as input to the selected generative AI systems (Paragraph 0206: the prompt is provided to the LLM);
and outputting generated UX or UI content based on the submitted prompts (Fig. 15 element 1506, Paragraph 0163, Paragraph 0192, Paragraph 0197 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0208, Paragraph 0209, Paragraph 0215, and Paragraph 0265: corresponding GUI components are output in the implementation-neutral design format and used to generate code for implementing the GUI).
While Saragadam teaches parsing the user specification to select one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems to be used to generate the UX or UI content, they fail to show the of a plurality of different available generative AI systems, as recited in the claims. Baijal teaches generative AI similar to that of Saragadam. In addition, Baijal further teaches
selecting an optimal AI model for performing processing on input data from a plurality of AI models (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saragadam and Baijal before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the parsing the user specification to select one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems to be used to generate the UX or UI content taught by Saragadam to include the selecting an optimal AI model for performing processing on input data from a plurality of AI models of Baijal, in order to obtain parsing the user specification to select one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems of a plurality of different available generative Al systems to be used to generate the UX or UI content. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as obtaining a desirable processing result and/or increasing processing accuracy of input data, would have been obtained, as suggested by Baijal (Paragraph 0012 and Paragraph 0301).
In regard to claim 4, Saragadam discloses wherein the generated UX or UI content comprises computer code (Paragraph 0209 and Paragraph 0215: corresponding code in JavaScript/HTML/CSS etc.).
In regard to claim 5, Saragadam discloses wherein the generated UX content comprises a UX workflow (Paragraph 0192 and Paragraph 0208: implementation-neutral design format).
In regard to claim 8, Saragadam discloses wherein the one or more design elements comprises colors, shapes, formats, functions, widgets, cards, tiles, panels, tabs, dropdown menus, accordion menus, sliders, form elements, icons, progress indicators, and dialog boxes (Paragraph 0152).
In regard to claims 11, 14, 15, and 18, method claims 11, 14, 15, and 18 correspond generally to system claims 1, 4, 5, and 8, respectively, and recite similar features in method form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 21, 24, 25, and 28, system claims 21, 24, 25, and 28 correspond generally to system claims 1, 4, 5, and 8, respectively, and recite similar features, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 31, 34, 35, and 38, media claims 31, 34, 35, and 38 correspond generally to system claims 1, 4, 5, and 8, respectively, and recite similar features in media form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
4. Claim(s) 6, 7, 16, 17, 26, 27, 36, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saragadam et al. (US 2025/0244972 A1), Baijal et al. (US 2020/0394451 A1), and further in view of Bahadur et al. (US 10884710 B1).
In regard to claim 6, while Saragadam teaches generating the UX or UI content including generating code (Paragraph 0215), they fail to show the wherein the UX or UI content is generated for a plurality of devices and platforms, as recited in the claims. Bahadur teaches generating code similar to that of Saragadam. In addition, Bahadur further teaches
generating code for a plurality of devices and platforms (Column 1 lines 46-54: generating deployable code for a plurality of target platforms/devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saragadam, Baijal, and Bahadur before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the generating the UX or UI content including generating code taught by Saragadam to include the generating code for a plurality of devices and platforms of Bahadur, in order to obtain wherein the UX or UI content is generated for a plurality of devices and platforms. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing a unified approach for converting output from design tools into deployable code, as suggested by Bahadur (Column 1 lines 25-31 and Column 1 lines 44-47).
In regard to claim 7, Bahadur further discloses wherein the plurality of devices and platforms comprise a computer, a mobile computing device, augmented reality or virtual reality devices, gaming platforms, and wearable devices (Column 4 lines 8-12). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the plurality of devices and platforms comprise a computer, a mobile computing device, augmented reality or virtual reality devices, gaming platforms, and wearable devices. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing a unified approach for converting output from design tools into deployable code, as suggested by Bahadur (Column 1 lines 25-31 and Column 1 lines 44-47).
In regard to claims 16 and 17, method claims 16 and 17 correspond generally to system claims 6 and 7, respectively, and recite similar features in method form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 26 and 27, system claims 26 and 27 correspond generally to system claims 6 and 7, respectively, and recite similar features, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 36 and 37, media claims 36 and 37 correspond generally to system claims 6 and 7, respectively, and recite similar features in media form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, 20, 29, 30, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saragadam et al. (US 2025/0244972 A1), Baijal et al. (US 2020/0394451 A1), and further in view of Turek et al. (US 2019/0317739 A1).
NOTE: In claim 9, the limitation “for specifying experiential elements, content elements, design elements, cross-platform targeting, AI integration, and analytics & optimization” is interpreted as an ‘intended use’ that does not limit the scope of the claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, see MPEP 2103.
In regard to claim 9, while Saragadam teaches the user specification, they fail to show the wherein the user specification is defined using a domain-specific language (DSL) that includes primitives for specifying experiential elements, content elements, design elements, cross-platform targeting, AI integration, and analytics & optimization, as recited in the claims. Turek teaches a user specification similar to that of Saragadam. In addition, Turek further teaches
defining a user specification by using a domain-specific language (DSL) that includes primitives (Paragraph 0024 and Paragraph 0027: DSL instructions for generating a GUI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saragadam, Baijal, and Turek before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user specification taught by Saragadam to include the defining a user specification by using a domain-specific language (DSL) that includes primitives of Turek, in order to obtain wherein the user specification is defined using a domain-specific language (DSL) that includes primitives. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as to facilitating expressing problems and solutions in a specific domain, as suggested by Turek (Paragraph 0024 lines 8-10).
NOTE: In claim 10, the limitation “for specifying how generative AI models should be used for content creation, experience personalization, and predictive UX optimizations” is interpreted as an ‘intended use’ that does not limit the scope of the claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, see MPEP 2103.
In regard to claim 10, Turek discloses defining a user specification by using a domain-specific language (DSL) that includes primitives (Paragraph 0024 and Paragraph 0027: DSL instructions for generating a GUI). Accordingly, the combination teaches wherein the DSL includes primitives. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as to facilitating expressing problems and solutions in a specific domain, as suggested by Turek (Paragraph 0024 lines 8-10).
In regard to claims 19 and 20, method claims 19 and 20 correspond generally to system claims 9 and 10, respectively, and recite similar features in method form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 29 and 30, system claims 29 and 30 correspond generally to system claims 9 and 10, respectively, and recite similar features, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 39 and 40, media claims 39 and 40 correspond generally to system claims 9 and 10, respectively, and recite similar features in media form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, 23, 32, and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, the prior art of record fails to disclose the recited “computing a clarity score for the user specification, wherein the clarity score is based on a plurality of factors; comparing the computed clarity score with a predetermined threshold value: wherein if the computed clarity score is less than the threshold value, collecting more design information from a designer to be added to the user specification; and wherein if the computed clarity score matches or exceeds the threshold value, allowing the parsing of the user specification” in combination with the other elements recited.
The applied prior art references, Saragadam and Baijal, to claim 1 fails to disclose this subject matter. Cited prior art reference Duggal et al. (US 2024/0345807 A1) teaches related subject matter in Paragraph 0341 where it is described that a user is requested to provide a minimum number of details. However, Duggal does not disclose the particulars of computing a clarity score and comparing the computed clarity score as required by the claim.
In regard to claims 12 and 13, 22, and 23, and 32 and 33, these claims recite similar subject matter as claims 2 and 3 and are not disclosed by the prior art of record for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
7. The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the previous claim objections to claims 1, 11, 21, and 31. Accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
8. The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 1-40. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
9. The amendments to claims 21-30 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 21-30. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 21-30 are withdrawn.
10. The arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights