DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/05/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 11/13/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). While the Applicant specifies in claim 1, 8 and 15 that “automatically building, by the computing device, the software application based on the instructions associated with the at least one selected function”, there is no written content as to how or what specific compilation algorithms are performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example) in order to automatically build the software application based on the instructions associated with the at least one selected function. As such, the disclosure does not objectively demonstrate that the applicant actually invented—was in possession of—the claimed subject matter. The written description requirement can be satisfied if the particular steps, i.e., algorithm, necessary to perform the claimed function were “described in the specification.” In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods, Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected as failing the written description requirement.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a method, a system and an manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request to generate a software application;
in response to receiving the request, causing, by the computing device, display of graphical user interface that includes: a plurality of feature sets, wherein each feature set of the plurality of feature sets has a corresponding plurality of functions; and a canvas interface that shows functions icons corresponding to selected functions for inclusion in the software application;
receiving, by the computing device and using the GUI, a first selection of at least one feature set from the plurality of feature sets;
causing, by the computing device, the canvas interface to be updated to show the plurality of functions that correspond to the at least one feature set;
receiving, by the computing device and using the canvas interface, a second selection of at least one selected function from the plurality of functions by input moving a first icon corresponding to the at least one selected function to a specified area of the canvas interface;
selecting, by the computing device, instructions associated with the at least one selected function;
automatically building, by the computing device, software application based on the instructions associated with the at least one selection function;
selecting, by the computing device, a plurality of content receivers; and
causing, by the computing device, the software application to be installed on the plurality of content receivers by pushing the software application to the plurality of content receivers.
Claim 8 recites:
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable memories storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to:
receive a request to create a software application;
in response to receiving the request, cause display of a graphical user interface that includes: a plurality of feature sets, wherein each feature set of the plurality of feature sets has a corresponding plurality of functions and a canvas interface that shows functions icons corresponding to selected functions for inclusion in the software application;
obtain, using the GUI, a first selection of at least one feature set from the plurality of feature sets, wherein the at least one feature set has a corresponding set of communications functions that enable communication between content receivers;
cause the canvas interface to be updated to show the plurality of communications functions that correspond to the at least one feature set;
obtain, using the canvas interface, a second selection of at least one selected communications function from the plurality of communications functions by input moving a first icon corresponding to the at least one selected function to a specified area of the canvas interface;
select instructions associated with the at least one selected communications function;
automatically build the software application based on the instructions associated with the at least one selection function;
select a plurality of content receivers;
install the software application to the plurality of content receivers; and
establish, using the software application, the communication between two or more content receivers of the plurality of content receivers.
Claim 15 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors to cause actions to be performed, the actions comprising:
receiving a request to generate a software application;
in response to receiving the request, causing display a graphical user interface that includes: a plurality of feature sets, wherein each feature set of the plurality of feature sets has a corresponding plurality of functions and a canvas interface that shows functions icons corresponding to selected functions for inclusion in the software application;
receiving, using the GUI, a first selection of at least one feature set from the plurality of feature sets;
causing the canvas interface to be updated to show the plurality of functions that correspond to the at least one feature set;
receiving, using the canvas interface, a second selection of at least one selected function from the plurality of provided functions wherein the at least one selected function enables communication between content receivers by input moving a first icon corresponding to the at least one selected function to a specified area of the canvas interface;
selecting instructions associated with the at least one selected function;
compiling the selected instructions for the at least one selected function to automatically build the software application;
selecting a plurality of content receivers;
causing the software application to be installed on the plurality of content receivers by pushing the software application to the plurality of content receivers; and
establishing, using the software application, the communication between two or more content receivers of the plurality of content receivers.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein causing the software application to be installed comprises: automatically pushing the software application to a content receiver of the plurality of content receivers from which the computing device has not received a request for the software application.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite:
obtaining, by the computing device, a target geographic area in which the software application is to be installed on content receivers; identifying, by the computing device, the plurality of content receivers in the target geographic area; and automatically pushing, by the computing device, the software application to the plurality of content receivers.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite:
wherein causing the software application to be installed comprises: receiving, by the computing device, selection of a target geographic area in which the software application is to be installed on content receivers; identifying, by the computing device, the plurality of content receivers in the target geographic area; and automatically pushing, by the computing device, the software application to the plurality of content receivers.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite:
wherein causing the software application to be installed comprises: receiving, by the computing device, user-identifying data that identifies a user associated with a content receiver of the plurality of content receivers; identifying, by the computing device, the user by comparing the received user-identifying data to user information in a database; in response to identifying the user, automatically pushing, by the computing device, the software application to the content receiver.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 recite:
receiving, by the computing device and via a content receiver of the plurality of content receivers, a request for content associated with the software application; receiving, by the computing device, user-identifying data that identifies a user associated with the content receiver; identifying, by the computing device, the user by comparing the received user-identifying data to user information in a database; and in response to identifying the user, providing, by the computing device and to the content receiver, the content associated with the software application.
Claims 7, and 14 recite:
wherein receiving the second selection of at least one selected function from the plurality of provided functions comprises: receiving, by the computing device, the second selection of at least one selected function via input dragging and dropping an icon that represents the function to a canvas.
Claims 9 and 16 recite:
wherein the one or more processors establish the communication between the two or more content receivers by being further configured to cause the system to: establish, using the software application, screen sharing between the two or more content receivers.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers providing customized product (software application). Providing customized product is considered to be a commercial interaction between at least a product requester, product maker and a product recipient, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “computing device” as a mere tool to perform the … steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “receiving, by a computing device, a request to generate a software application” and “receive a request to create a software application” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving a request to generate or create a product, in which the product is a software application;
the limitation “in response to receiving the request, causing, by the computing device, display of graphical user interface that includes: a plurality of feature sets, wherein each feature set of the plurality of feature sets has a corresponding plurality of functions; and a canvas interface that shows functions icons corresponding to selected functions for inclusion in the software application” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing feature sets to select from;
the limitation “receiving, by the computing device and using the GUI, a first selection of at least one feature set from the plurality of feature sets” and “obtain, using the GUI, a first selection of at least one feature set from the plurality of feature sets, wherein the at least one feature set has a corresponding set of communications functions that enable communication between content receivers” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving selection of features from the feature sets;
the limitation “causing, by the computing device, the canvas interface to be updated to show the plurality of functions that correspond to the at least one feature set” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing functions to be selected;
the limitation “receiving, by the computing device and using the canvas interface, a second selection of at least one selected function from the plurality of functions by input moving a first icon corresponding to the at least one selected function to a specified area of the canvas interface” and “receiving, using the canvas interface, a second selection of at least one selected function from the plurality of provided functions wherein the at least one selected function enables communication between content receivers by input moving a first icon corresponding to the at least one selected function to a specified area of the canvas interface” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving selection of functions;
the limitation “selecting, by the computing device, instructions associated with the at least one selected function” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting instructions based on selected function;
the limitation “automatically building, by the computing device, software application based on the instructions associated with the at least one selected function” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of building the product based on the selected function;
the limitation “selecting, by the computing device, a plurality of content receivers” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting the plurality of content receivers;
the limitation “causing, by the computing device, the software application to be installed on the plurality of content receivers by pushing the software application to the plurality of content receivers” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing the product;
the limitation “establish, using the software application, the communication between two or more content receivers of the plurality of content receivers” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of using the product to establish communication;
the limitation “wherein causing the software application to be installed comprises: automatically pushing the software application to a content receiver of the plurality of content receivers from which the computing device has not received a request for the software application” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing the product to content receivers that did not request for the product;
the limitation “obtaining, by the computing device, a target geographic area in which the software application is to be installed on content receivers; identifying, by the computing device, the plurality of content receivers in the target geographic area; and automatically pushing, by the computing device, the software application to the plurality of content receivers” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of obtaining a target geographic area in which product is to be provided, identifying the content receivers in the target geographic area and providing the product to the content receivers;
the limitation “wherein causing the software application to be installed comprises: receiving, by the computing device, selection of a target geographic area in which the software application is to be installed on content receivers; identifying, by the computing device, the plurality of content receivers in the target geographic area; and automatically pushing, by the computing device, the software application to the plurality of content receivers” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving selection of target geographic area in which product is to be provided, identifying the content receivers in the target geographic area and providing the product to the content receivers;
the limitation “wherein causing the software application to be installed comprises: receiving, by the computing device, user-identifying data that identifies a user associated with a content receiver of the plurality of content receivers; identifying, by the computing device, the user by comparing the received user-identifying data to user information in a database; in response to identifying the user, automatically pushing, by the computing device, the software application to the content receiver” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving user identifying data, identifying the user by comparing user data to information in a database, and providing content to the user’s content receiver;
the limitation “receiving, by the computing device and via a content receiver of the plurality of content receivers, a request for content associated with the software application; receiving, by the computing device, user-identifying data that identifies a user associated with the content receiver; identifying, by the computing device, the user by comparing the received user-identifying data to user information in a database; and in response to identifying the user, providing, by the computing device and to the content receiver, the content associated with the software application” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving request for content associated with the product, receiving user identifying data, identifying the user by comparing user data to information in a database, and providing content to the user’s content receiver using the product;
the limitation “wherein receiving the second selection of at least one selected function from the plurality of provided functions comprises: receiving, by the computing device, the second selection of at least one selected function via input dragging and dropping an icon that represents the function to a canvas” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the second selection of function;
the limitation “wherein the one or more processors establish the communication between the two or more content receivers by being further configured to cause the system to: establish, using the software application, screen sharing between the two or more content receivers” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of using the product to provide the function of the product;
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory”, “non-transitory storage medium” or “database” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “content receivers” are generically recited as devices to receive installation of the software application (a product). However, the devices is described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for the content receivers’ operation as the result of the software application.
The additional element(s) of “software application to be installed on the plurality of content receivers by pushing the software application to the plurality of content receivers” are generically recited to provide the software application (a product) to content receiver devices. However, the function is described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the “pushing” is technologically accomplished.
The additional element(s) of “software application” are generically recited to perform communication function is such as screen sharing between two or more device. However, the function is described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the “software application” accomplish it.
The additional element(s) of “causing … display of graphical user interface”, “using the GUI”, “canvas interface”, “using the canvas interface” “by input moving a first icon corresponding to the at least one selected function to a specified area of the canvas interface” and “via input dragging and dropping an icon” is generically recited to receive user selection input and is described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient technological detail for how the computing device accomplish it.
The additional element(s) of “automatically build the software application” are generically described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the computing device accomplish it.
The examiner further noted generic computer affix such as “automatically” appended to the one or more steps of the Judicial Exception, e.g. automatically build the software application, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
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 of using a computing device to provide customized product, despite the product being a software application, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) are moot in view of the Amendment filed on 11/13/2025, the respectfully disagrees. The claims remain to recite “automatically building, by the computing device, the software application”. It should be noted a computing device automatically building a software application based on selected function is a computing device able to exercise judgement or creativity. The disclosure does not provide technological disclosure how a computing device can achieve that function. It should be noted that result-only description do not objectively demonstrate possession of the invention. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the inclusion of the GUI, the canvas interface and moving icon to select features integrate the Judicial Exception into practical application and amount to significantly more, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The GUI, the canvas interface and moving icon to select features are recited in high generality, result-only and devoid of technological detail explain how the interface achieve the claimed function, which indicate a Mere Instruction to Apply drafting effort. It is noted that to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693