DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Each of claims 6-8, 14-16. 18-20 is 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 its base claim and any intervening claims set forth in this action and if rewritten to overcome all the objection(s) and/or rejection(s) set forth below in this action.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0229525 A1 hereinafter Barak)
With regard to claims 1, 9, 17, Barak teaches a method, a system, a method respectively, for dynamically generating a user interface (“UI”), the UI for use with a source application <user interface can be dynamically customized para 0006>, the method comprising:
tagging each field within the source application to one or more of a plurality of priority levels <access permission is assigned from a set of permissions based upon usage data of the application para 0037>;
identifying a user accessing the source application, the user accessing the source application via a user device, the user device including a graphical user interface (“GUI”) <fig 1 shows user accessing an application from the user device having graphical user interface para 0026>;
using a look-up chart stored in a database to identify <rules stored in a database can be retrieved para 0033>:
a user priority level of the user <access permissions para 0037>; and
a plurality of historic pattern behaviors of the user <access permission para 0037>;
generating the UI, on the GUI, the generating being based on the user priority level and the plurality of historic pattern behaviors of the user <customization of UI can be performed based upon access permission and historic usage para 0033, 0037>;
dynamically monitoring the user's usage of the source application <user interactions can be monitored para 0057-0059>; and
adjusting, in a first adjusting, the UI based on the usage <customization can be performed based on user behavior and interaction para 0034-0038>;
wherein:
the user priority level is one of the plurality of priority levels < a set of permission levels can be assigned para 0037>;
the generating the UI includes:
adding each field tagged to the user priority level to the UI <functions can be added based on access level and behavior para 0055-0060> ; and adding each field associated with the historic pattern behaviors of the user to the UI <functions can be added based on access level and behavior para 0055-0060>; and
the first adjusting includes adding, removing and changing at least one field generated on the UI <functions can be added/removed para 0034>.
a processor (claim 9) <para 0012>;
a memory (claim 9) <para 0012>; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions (claim 9) <para 0011>;
using an artificial intelligence (“AI”) engine to analyze the usage to identify the at least one field (claim 17) <artificial intelligence can be used to determine a function which can be added or removed para 0060>
With regard to claims 2, 10, these claims depend upon claims 1, 9, which are rejected above. In addition, Barak teaches wherein the identifying the user accessing the source application comprises identifying at least one of a user's device identity, a user's login credentials or a user login network <user device can be identified for access to the application para 0037>.
With regard to claims 4, 12, these claims depend upon claims 1, 9, which are rejected above. In addition, Barak teaches wherein the first adjusting includes using an artificial intelligence (“AI”) engine to analyze the usage to identify the at least one field <artificial intelligence can be used to determine which function can be added or removed para 0060>.
With regard to claims 5, 13, these claims depend upon claims 1, 9, which are rejected above. In addition, Barak teaches the method further comprising:
updating the historic pattern behaviors of the user to include:
the usage <user experience para 0033, 0060>; and
the first adjusting <functions removed or added para 0060; and
storing the updated historic pattern behaviors of the user in the database <historic data can be stored for analytics para 0033, 0060>.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak in view of Trevino Rojas (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0148251 A1 hereinafter Trevino).
With regard to claims 3, 11, these claims depend upon claims 2, 10, which are rejected above. Barak does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Trevino teaches wherein when the user cannot be identified the user is assigned a lowest priority level of the plurality of priority levels <a public member (unidentified user) can be assigned a lowest permission level para 0193>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barak, Trevino before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Barak to include the teachings of Trevino, in order to obtain limitations taught by Trevino. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it efficiently manages allocation of appropriate access level by all users to the application
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
George et al (2014/0089824) – Abstract, para 0015, 0043, fig 4.
Sinn et al (2020/0133641) – para 0034, 0042, 0046.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights