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 . This office action is in response to communication filed on 8/4/2026.
The instant application having application No. 18/751,883 filed on June 24, 2026, is continuation of Application No. 17/688025, now patent 12019531, and is continuation of PCT/CN2020/110026 filed 8/19/2020, claims foreign priority to CN201910840922.6 file 9/5/2019, and CN201910886241.3 filed 9/19/2019.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11-12, 15, and 19-20 have been amended, claims 3, 6, and 16 are canceled, claims 21-23 are added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, and 17-23 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding claim objections: Applicant's amendment appropriately addressed the objections to the claims 11-12 and 19, the objections are withdrawn.
(B). Regarding double patenting rejections: Applicant requested the rejections be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowed.
(C). Regarding 101 rejection: Amended claims are still abstract idea without significantly more, the 101 rejection is maintained as set forth below.
(D). Regarding art rejection: In regard to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures 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 their 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“obtaining a description file from an installation package of an application, wherein the description file indicates a first function to be implemented by the application, wherein the first function is a split-screen function, and wherein the description file is defined by a protocol description based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON);
identifying a first component based on the description file, wherein the first component is a split-screen component for providing the split-screen function for displaying pages of the application in split screens, and wherein the first component is configured to provide a device capability service and can implement an independent function;”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. E.g. human can manually obtain a description file as defined in the claim; can manually identify a first component as defined in the claim. Thus, these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function.”
Wherein the “running“ limitation is merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function.”, is merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, thus, is not an inventive concept. Accordingly, even viewed as a whole, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 15, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to an electronic device under Step 1.
This claim recites an electronic device to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 15 recites additional elements that are not recited in claim 1, i.e. “a memory”, “a processor” and “an electronic device”; but these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 20, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a computer program product under Step 1.
This claim recites a computer program product to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 20 recites additional elements that are not recited in claim 1, i.e. “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a processor” and “an electronic device”; but these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the description file comprises a field identifying the first function.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 4, “further comprising obtaining the description file from the installation package when the application is installed.” Further defines the obtaining process, is the same mental process as the obtaining process in claim 1.
With respect to claim 5, “wherein the method is performed by an operating system of an electronic device.” It is merely using an electronic device to implement the method of abstract idea.
With respect to claim 7, “wherein running the first component based on the description file comprises displaying related activities of the application described in the description file in a split-screen manner.” Further defines the running process, is merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 8, “wherein the application is a news application or a shopping application.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 9, 17, and 21, “wherein the description file comprises a logical block, wherein the logical block comprises a single logical entity indicating a running instance of a component, wherein the single logical entity comprises a head area, wherein the head area comprises a first field identifying the first component, and wherein identifying the first component based on the description file comprises identifying the first component based on the first field.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Further, the identifying process is mental process because human can manually perform the identifying process.
With respect to claims 10, 18, and 22, “wherein the single logical entity further comprises a body area, wherein the body area comprises a second field for data required by a component to implement a function, and wherein running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function comprises running the first component based on the second field to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). In addition, the running process is further defined, but it is still the same running process as in claim 1 which is merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not constitute an inventive concept.
With respect to claims 11, 19, and 23, “wherein the description file further comprises an identification block, wherein the identification block comprises at least one of the following fields: a protocol version number used by the description file, an identifier of the application, or a signature of the application, and
wherein identifying the first component based on the description file comprises:
checking normalization of the description file based on the fields comprised in the identification block of the description file and the first field
identifying, when the normalization check of the description file succeeds, the first component based on the first field of the single logical entity in the logical block of the description file.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Further, checking normalization process and the identifying process are mental processes because human can manually perform these processes.
With respect to claim 12, “wherein obtaining the description file of the application comprises obtaining the description file in a non-run time of the application,
wherein the method further comprises:
parsing the description file; and
storing the fields comprised in the identification block, and
wherein running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function comprises:
reading, in a run time of the application, the second field;
parsing the second field comprised in the body area of the single logical entity in the logical block of the description file; and
running the first component based on a parsing result to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function.” wherein the obtaining is the same as that in claim 1, i.e. the same mental process. “parsing …” is mental process because human can manually parse the description file or parse a field in a file. “storing …” and “reading …” are extra-solution activities and are recognized in MPEP as well understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d), II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for reading and storing data. “running …” further define the running process in claim 1, i.e. it is merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 13, “further comprising storing first configuration information of a first plurality of components of an electronic device, wherein identifying the first component based on the description file comprises identifying the first component based on the description file and the first configuration information.” wherein “storing …” is extra-solution activity and is recognized in MPEP as well understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d), II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for retrieving and storing data. “identifying …” is mental process because human can manually perform the identifying process.
With respect to claim 14, “wherein the method is performed by the electronic device, and wherein the method further comprises:
storing second configuration information of a second plurality of components of a second device that establishes a wireless connection to the electronic device; and
transmitting, when identifying one of the second plurality of components that can implement the first function, the description file to the second device for running the first component.” wherein the electronic device is merely used as a tool to implement the method of abstract idea. “storing …” and “transmitting …” are extra-solution activity and are recognized in MPEP as well understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d), II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for retrieving and storing data, Symantec for receiving and transmitting data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 19, and 23 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 after 101 rejections and double patenting rejections are overcome.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZINN et al. (US 20170262263 A1, hereinafter “ZINN”, cited from IDS filed on 6/24/2024) in view of ITOU (US 20200233562 A1, hereinafter “ITOU”) and Myers et al. (US 20190312746 A1, hereinafter “Myers”).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), ZINN discloses A method comprising:
obtaining a description file from an installation package of an application, wherein the description file indicates a first function to be implemented by the application, [wherein the first function is a split-screen function, and wherein the description file is defined by a protocol description based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)] (e.g. para [0045], “The transformation tool DADT has an analyzer module DADA for the analysis of a structure as well as of contents of the application description. The analyzer module DADA breaks down the application description DAD into segments such as, for example, input prompts and display information, so as to receive user interface information. Furthermore, an application structure, an application type, an application environment as well as linker details are determined by means of the analyzer module.” Para [0037], “The application description DAD, preferably a XML document, is stored in a data storage DS1 …” wherein the application description stored in a data storage suggests an installation package);
identifying a first component based on the description file, [wherein the first component is a split-screen component for providing the split-screen function for displaying pages of the application in split screens] (e.g. para [0045], “The transformation tool DADT has an analyzer module DADA for the analysis of a structure as well as of contents of the application description. The analyzer module DADA breaks down the application description DAD into segments such as, for example, input prompts and display information, so as to receive user interface information. Furthermore, an application structure, an application type, an application environment as well as linker details are determined by means of the analyzer module.” Wherein the input prompts and display information read on the first component, and is configured to provide a device capability, e.g. user interface); and
running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function (e.g. para [0058], “While taking into consideration the application type as well as the application environment, the compiled mobile application CAPP is prepared for downloading by means of a deployment tool APPDH. The mobile application MAPP is thereby compatibly laid out for a mobile-device-specific operating system and a corresponding application store.” Wherein prepared for downloading by means of a deployment tool suggests running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service).
ZINN does not appear to explicitly disclose
(obtaining a description file from an installation package of an application, wherein the description file indicates a first function to be implemented by the application), wherein the first function is a split-screen function, and wherein the description file is defined by a protocol description based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON).
(identifying a first component based on the description file), wherein the first component is a split-screen component for providing the split-screen function for displaying pages of the application in split screens
However, in analogous art, ITOU discloses
(…), wherein the first function is a split-screen function (e.g. para [0068], “Split-screen display control unit 314 splits a screen into a plurality of display areas and displays app images in the plurality of display areas, respectively. Split-screen display control unit 314 is a function that is included in the OS (function realized by the OS) of smartphone 1. ….”), and [wherein the description file is defined by a protocol description based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)].
(…), wherein the first component is a split-screen component for providing the split-screen function for displaying pages of the application in split screens (e.g. para [0068], “Split-screen display control unit 314 splits a screen into a plurality of display areas and displays app images in the plurality of display areas, respectively. Split-screen display control unit 314 is a function that is included in the OS (function realized by the OS) of smartphone 1. ….” wherein control unit 314 reads on the first component)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of ZINN with the invention of ITOU because it provides techniques for reducing inconvenience when images of two applications are to be displayed simultaneously. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for reducing inconvenience when images of two applications are to be displayed simultaneously as suggested by ITOU (see Summary of The Invention).
ZINN as modified by ITOU does not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the description file is defined by a protocol description based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
However, this is taught in analogous art, Myers (e.g. para [0083], “In one embodiment, the configuration file 118 is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) document containing information specific to the device control application 115 being designed. The configuration file 118 may include references to resources as well as references to classes.” Wherein the configuration file is analogous to the description file, and renders the claim feature obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Myers because it provides techniques for facilitating users to generate device control applications with minimal or no coding by way of configuration-driven development. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for facilitating users to generate device control applications with minimal or no coding by way of configuration-driven development as suggested by Myers (see para [0002, 0045, 82-83]).
With respect to claim 2 (Previously Presented), Myers further discloses wherein the description file comprises a field identifying the first function (e.g. para [0192], “… At block 405 of method 400, processing logic receives an identification of a source code file for a device control application and an associated configuration file for the device control application. The configuration file specifies a first set of classes that are to be used by the device control application but that are not specified in the source code of the device control application. …” wherein a first set of classes read on the first function. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 4 (Currently Amended), ZINN discloses further comprising obtaining the description file from the installation package when the application is installed (e.g. para [0036], “FIG. 1 shows a system for the generation of an operating program in the form of an executable mobile application MAPP on a mobile device MD for the writing and reading of data in or from an application program DA running in an automation device D for the control of a machine M. It is foreseen according to the invention that the mobile application MAPP is generated by means of the automatic transformation of one application description DAD of the application program DA by means of an application generator system APPGS taking into account user-specific and/or mobile-device-specific input information CSI, MDI and existing software artifacts ADSA, MDSA.” this paragraph suggests that the application description DAD is obtained from an installation package when the application is installed on device D).
With respect to claim 5 (Previously Presented), ZINN discloses wherein the method is performed by an operating system of an electronic device (e.g. para [0042], “The application generator system APPGS includes a code generator system CGS, a deployment system DS, as well as management control system MCS.” The paragraph suggests that the method of generating the application is performed by operating system of APPGS).
With respect to claim 7 (Currently Amended), ITOU further discloses wherein running the first component based on the description file comprises displaying related activities of the application described in the description file in a split-screen manner (e.g. para [0070], “… Split-screen display control unit 314 displays, in first split area D1, an app image (in this example, app image AG1 of app A1) …” para [0071], “Also, split-screen display control unit 314 refers to started app information holding unit 313 and reads out app information regarding started apps, and displays, in second split area D2, thumbnail images (in this example, thumbnail images SG3, SG4, and SG5 of apps A3, A4, and A5) of apps other than the app displayed in first split area D1. …” wherein the different contents displayed in the different split area D1 and D2 suggest the displaying is controlled by a configuration/description file. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 8 (Previously Presented), ITOU further discloses wherein the application is a news application or a shopping application (e.g. para [0059], “… App executing unit 305 executes processing related to the started app. For example, in the case of a browser, app executing unit 305 executes processing for acquiring a web page from a web server, …” wherein a web page suggests news or shopping applications. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 15 (Currently Amended), it is directed to an electronic device to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 15. Note that, ZINN teaches An electronic device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to (e.g. Fig. 1 APPGS):
With respect to claim 20 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a computer program product to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 20. Note that, ZINN teaches A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor, cause an electronic device to (e.g. Fig. 1 APPGS):
Claims 9-10, 17-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZINN in view of ITOU and Myers as applied to claims 1, 15, and 20 respectively, further in view of STANDLEY et al. (US 20160283256 A1, hereinafter “STANDLEY”).
With respect to claim 9 (Previously Presented), ZINN as modified by ITOU and Myers discloses The method according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly discloses wherein the description file comprises a logical block, wherein the logical block comprises a single logical entity indicating a running instance of a component, wherein the single logical entity comprises a head area, wherein the head area comprises a first field identifying the first component, and wherein identifying the first component based on the description file comprises identifying the first component based on the first field. However, this is taught in analogous art, STANDLEY (e.g. para [0284], “Referring to FIG. 22, one embodiment of an environment 2200 within which configuration information is used to configure two services 230 based on the same service class 202 in different ways is illustrated. The configuration information 1902 (FIG. 19A) allows limited configuration of a particular service 230 at runtime by defining which blocks 232 are to be executed by the service and the order of execution of the blocks 232. ….” Wherein block 232 reads on a logical block, a single logical entity, a head area, and the first field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of STANDLEY because it provides techniques for configuring a platform instance at runtime using predefined configuration information and contexts that contain at least a portion of the predefined configuration information and also contain dynamically generated information that is not available until the platform instance is started. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for configuring a platform instance at runtime using predefined configuration information and contexts that contain at least a portion of the predefined configuration information and also contain dynamically generated information that is not available until the platform instance is started as suggested by STANDLEY (see Abstract).
With respect to claim 10 (Previously Presented), ZINN as modified by ITOU, Myers and STANDLEY discloses The method according to claim 9, STANDLEY further discloses wherein the single logical entity further comprises a body area, wherein the body area comprises a second field for data required by a component to implement a function, and wherein running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function comprises running the first component based on the second field to provide the device capability service for the application in order to implement the first function (e.g. para [0284], “Referring to FIG. 22, one embodiment of an environment 2200 within which
configuration information is used to configure two services 230 based on the same service class 202 in different ways is illustrated. The configuration information 1902
(FIG. 19A) allows limited configuration of a particular service 230 at runtime by
defining which blocks 232 are to be executed by the service and the order of execution of the blocks 232. The configuration information 1902 may also be used to set the values of configurable parameters defined within the service class 202. This means that the same service 230 can be configured in different ways depending on the blocks 232, the order of execution, and the values in the configuration information 1902 that is used to configure the service 230.” Wherein the configuration information used to set the values of configurable parameters reads on a body area. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 9 above).
With respect to claim 17 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 18 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 10, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 21 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 22 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 10, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZINN in view of ITOU and Myers as applied to claim 1, further in view of MARTINI et al. (US 20190384580 A1, hereinafter “MARTINI”).
With respect to claim 13 (Previously Presented), ZINN as modified by ITOU and Myers discloses The method according to claim 1, ZINN discloses further comprising […], wherein identifying the first component based on the description file comprises identifying the first component based on the description file and […] (e.g. see office action regarding claim 1 above). But does not appear to explicitly discloses further comprising storing first configuration information of a first plurality of components of an electronic device, wherein identifying the first component based on the description file comprises identifying the first component based on (…) and the first configuration information. However, this is taught in analogous art, MARTINI (e.g. para [0075], “… In block 204, the controlling server may fetch a data model that identifies the capabilities of at least one of the remote network components. For example, the data model may identify how much memory remains available in the remote network component, how may cycles the remote network component may allocate for augmented functionalities, how many processing blocks are available, how many tables are available, the software or operating system versions, hardware configuration information, etc.” para [0076], “In block 206, the controlling server may use the data model to match an application or tailor a code segment to the capabilities of the remote network component. …” Wherein an application or code segment reads on the first component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of MARTINI because it provides techniques for remotely, quickly, efficiently, and dynamically updating the programming of a large number of deployed network elements. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for remotely, quickly, efficiently, and dynamically updating the programming of a large number of deployed network elements as suggested by MARTINI (see para [0003-0004]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZINN in view of ITOU, Myers and MARTINI et al. (US 20190384580 A1, hereinafter “MARTINI”) as applied to claim 13, in further view of Shrivastava (US 20190138293 A1, hereinafter “Shrivastava”).
With respect to claim 14 (Previously Presented), ZINN as modified by ITOU, Myers and MARTINI discloses The method according to claim 13, MARTINI further discloses wherein the method is performed by the electronic device, and wherein the method further comprises:
storing second configuration information of a second plurality of components of a second device that establishes a wireless connection to the electronic device (e.g. para [0075], “… In block 204, the controlling server may fetch a data model that identifies the capabilities of at least one of the remote network components. For example, the data model may identify how much memory remains available in the remote network component, how may cycles the remote network component may allocate for augmented functionalities, how many processing blocks are available, how many tables are available, the software or operating system versions, hardware configuration information, etc.” wherein a data model reads on configuration information. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 13); But does not appear to explicitly disclose
transmitting, when identifying one of the second plurality of components that can implement the first function, the description file to the second device for running the first component. However, this is taught in analogous art, Shrivastava (e.g. para [0004], “… An application package that includes instructions for manipulating an application executing on the client device using the first application is generated. The package is provided to the client devices, …” wherein instructions for manipulating an application executing read on the description file.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Shrivastava because it provides techniques for dynamically providing applications that are tailored to the users. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for dynamically providing applications that are tailored to the users as suggested by Shrivastava (see para [0003-0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 101 and 103 rejections filed on 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p11 second from last paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “…, and therefore concludes that the limitations fall within the mental-process grouping of abstract ideas. That characterization is inconsistent with the actual claim language. Claim 1 recites obtaining a description file defined by a protocol description based on JSON, determining a first component configured to provide a device capability service and implement an independent function, and running the first component based on the description file to provide the device capability service for the application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, the obtaining and determining processes are analyzed as mental processes. The claim recites additional element, i.e. running the component which is merely using a computer to implement the identified abstract idea.
At p11 last to p12 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “... A human mind cannot obtain a description file from an installation package and run a device component to provide a device capability service for an application. The claim therefore is not directed to a process that can practically be performed in the human mind.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, human can manually obtain a description file from an installation package, i.e. it is mental process. Running a device component is additional element which is merely using a computer to implement the identified abstract idea, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not constitute an inventive concept.
At p12 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Even assuming, only for purposes of argument, that the claim recites an abstract idea, the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claim applies the JSON- based description file in a particular technological environment to control application access to device capability services through a corresponding device component. The first component is a split- screen component for providing the split-screen function and is configured to provide a device capability service and implement an independent function. This is a specific software-architecture solution for implementing application functions through device capability components, not a mere instruction to apply an idea using a generic computer.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the JSON- based description file only indicates the type/format of the description file, it is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). “a split- screen component” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer/software component) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component/software.
At p12 last paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The dependent claims further confirm the practical application. Claim 5 recites that the method is performed by an operating system of an electronic device. Claim 7 recites displaying related activities of the application in a split-screen manner based on the description file. Claims 9 and 10 recite a specific description-file structure including a logical block, a single logical entity, a head area with a component-identifying field, and a body area with data required by a component to implement a function. Claims 11 and 12 recite checking normalization of the description file, identifying the component only when the normalization check succeeds, non-run-time parsing and storage, and run-time reading, parsing, and running of the component. Claims 13 and 14 recite using stored configuration information for local and wirelessly connected device components to identify a component capable of implementing the first function and, in claim 14, transmitting the description file to the second device. These limitations are directed to concrete computer and device operations that improve how applications invoke device capabilities.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the dependent claims do not recite any element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. As set forth in the office action, the operating system of an electronic device in claim 5 is merely used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea. Claim 7 further defines the running process, is merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Claims 9 and 10 further define the description file which is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and further define the identifying process and the running process which are the same processes as in claim 1, i.e. the identifying process is mental process, and the running process is merely using a computer to implement the identified abstract idea. “checking normalization of the description file, identifying the component only when the normalization check succeeds, non-run-time parsing” in claims 11 and 12 are mental processes as human can manually perform these processes. Reading and storage are insignificant extra-solution activities and are recognized in MPEP as well understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d), II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for reading and storing data. “running of the component” is merely using a computer to implement the identified abstract idea. “run-time reading, parsing,” are not recited in the claims. Claims 13 and 14 further define the identifying process by using configuration information, wherein the storing and transmitting processes are insignificant extra-solution activities which are recognized in MPEP as well understood, routine, and conventional. These limitations do not improve technology.
At p13 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The Office Action's Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis does not address these ordered combinations. For claim 1, the Office Action identifies "running the first component based on the description file" as the only additional element and concludes that it merely uses a computer as a tool. That analysis overlooks that the claim does not merely say "run software." It recites running a specifically identified component, selected based on a JSON-based description file, to provide a device capability service for an application. Claim 1 links the JSON-based description file, first component, device capability service, and implementation of the first function in a single ordered method.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, following guidelines in MPEP, all limitations of the claims are analyzed and no additional element integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The JSON-based description file only indicates the format of the file, it does not affect technology. The ordered method is abstract idea without significantly more, or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea.
At p13 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The claims are analogous to the eligible claims in the USPTO eligibility examples and Federal Circuit decisions involving improvements to computer functionality, user interfaces, networked systems, and software architecture. Like the eligible claims in the provided PEG Examples concerning GUI rearrangement, packet filtering, encryption, standardized record conversion, and injection-molding feedback control, the present claims use information in a specific technological process rather than merely collecting or displaying information. The claims recite a specific implementation that improves operation of computer or device technology rather than claiming a result at a high level.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the eligible claims in the provided PEG Examples integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or improve technology. However, the instant claims as analyzed in the office action and explained above, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or do not improve technology.
At p13 last to p14 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The claims also recite significantly more under Step 2B. The ordered combination of claim 1 provides a specific mechanism for non-intrusive application interaction: a JSON-based description file indicates a split-screen function to be implemented, the file is used to identify a device component capable of implementing the function, and the component is run to provide a device capability service for the application. That ordered combination is expressly recited in claim 1. Claims 9-12 and 17-19 add a particular description-file architecture and validation/execution process, including logical blocks, single logical entities, head and body areas, component-identifying fields, component data fields, normalization checking, and run-time parsing and execution. Those limitations are recited in claims 9-12 and 17-19. Claim 14 further adds cross-device component capability selection and transmission of the description file to a wirelessly connected device. Claim 14 recites storing configuration information of a second device's components and transmitting the description file to that second device when a component of the second device can implement the first function.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, e.g. paragraphs 51 and 53. The ordered combination of claim 1 is abstract idea without significantly more, or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea, no additional elements amount to significantly more. The dependent claims do not recite any element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite any element that amounts to significantly more.
At p14 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, and 17-23 are not directed to an abstract idea. Alternatively, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application and the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because as explained above, the claims are abstract idea without significantly more, and do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
At p16 second to 17 first paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to Sasidharan, these arguments are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
At p17 last to p19 first paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to Myers, particularly, at p18 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… However, Myers's configuration file is not a description file that indicates a first function to be implemented by an application and is used to determine and run a first component that provides a device capability service for that application. Instead, Myer's configuration file 118 contains selected graphics, screens, controls and actions as well as the relationships between these selected resources and classes to generate a device control application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Myers’ configuration file defines a device control application, and is analogous to the description file of the instant claims, i.e. the description file of the instant claims can be in JSON format. The combination of Myers with the primary reference renders the claim feature obvious.
At p19 last to p20 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “However, the state motivation does not explain why one of ordinary skill would have modified Sasidharan's replacement of monolithic applications with microservices using Myers's device-control configuration file to arrive at the claimed non-intrusive interaction method, in which a JSON-based protocol description is used to determine and run a device capability component for an application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Myers teaches configuration file in JSON format, wherein the configuration file is analogous to the description file of the instant claims, so that the description file can be in JSON format, i.e. combination of Myers with primary reference renders claim feature obvious.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to art rejections are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, LEE, US 20150227287 A1 teaches electronic device for managing applications running therein and method for same.
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 Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights