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 Objections
3. Claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 12 recites “generating”. It appears as though this should recite “generated”.
Claims 11, 21, and 31 recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and are objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
4. Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the presented or intermediate UX or UI content" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited "the presented or intermediate UX or UI content" is referring back to the previously recited “user experience (UX) or user interface (UI) content” or is reciting additional not previously recited elements. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are rejected at least based on the dependency as these claims incorporate the identified indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Independent claims 11, 21, and 31 recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 12-20, 22-30, and 32-40 each depend from one of claims 11, 21, and 31 and are rejected at least based on the dependency as these claims incorporate the identified indefinite subject matter of claims 11, 21, or 31.
Further, claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more hardware processors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, claim 22 recites the limitation "the one or more hardware processors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, claim 32 recites the limitation "the one or more hardware processors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
5. Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 because the recited “one or more computers with executable instruction that, when executed, cause the system to” can be broadly interpreted as directed towards software per se and no other hardware elements are recited. A proper system claim must recite explicit hardware elements in order to properly claim a system. For example, the claim could recite “…comprising one or more computers, wherein the one or more computers comprise one or more hardware processors and executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the system to…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31, 34, 35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saragadam et al. (US 2025/0244972 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 presented or intermediate 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 generate 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 generating 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).
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, Saragadem 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.
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.
7. 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) 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 f target platforms/devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saragadam 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.
8. 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) 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 and Turek before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the 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.
Claims NOT Rejected Over the Prior Art
9. Prior art rejections have not been provided for claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, 23, 32, and 33 as these claims contain subject matter not disclosed by the prior art of record. However, these claims stand rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112 and/or 35 U.S.C. 101 and therefore would not be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims until the 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are overcome.
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 reference, Saragadam, 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.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2025/0355643 A1), see at least the abstract.
Kim (WO 2025/084457 A2), see at least the abstract.
Castillo et al. (US 2025/0028759 A1), see at least Figs. 12A-12D.
Schmidt et al. (US 2025/0021309 A1), see at least the abstract.
Subburaj et al. (US 2024/0004620 A1), see at least the abstract.
Kirilov et al. (US 11385867 B1), see at least the abstract.
Lampon-Monk (US 2022/0012023 A1), see at least the abstract.
Kumar (US 2019/0250891 A1), see at least the abstract, Fig. 1 element 103, and Paragraph 0078.
Frick (From Design to Code: A Study on Generating Production Code From User Interface Design Software (Dissertation), retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-197681, 7/19/2022).
Raptis et al. (Transforming Ideas into Code: A Novel Approach to Design-to-Development Workflow, IEEE Xplore, 2023).
11. 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.
12. 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