Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/11/2026.
3. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/23/2026 and 02/09/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections made in the prior Office action are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
6. The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s decision to hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance. Thus, the previously issued double patenting rejection is maintained.
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 1, 10 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/659,677. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are an obvious variation of the instant claims. Claim 1 of the reference application discloses a similar operation as the instant application except it does not disclose the claim limitation of “generating a prompt for a natural language model based on the request and the data; and generating, via the natural language model based on the prompt, a representation of the user interface component, wherein the representation of the user interface component comprises a structure format interpretable into a graphical form.” However, Dhillon discloses the features of generating a prompt for an LLM based on the automation ([0051]) and the GUI for presenting a graph-based visualization of a process to a user ([0193-0194]) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Dhillon in the system of reference application in view of improving the efficiency of building a custom user interface.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Application No. 18/659,677
Claim 1. A method for building a user interface comprising:
receiving, in a first section of the user interface, a request to generate a user interface component, wherein the request indicates data usable to populate the user interface component;
generating a prompt for a natural language model based on the request and the data; and
generating, via the natural language model based on the prompt, a representation of the user interface component, wherein the representation of the user interface component comprises a structure format interpretable into a graphical form
providing, in the first section of the user interface, the representation of the user interface component for display;
in response to selection of the representation of the user interface component, adding, to a second section of the user interface, the representation of the user interface component.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving, from an application, a request, wherein the request includes textual content;
in response to receiving the request, determining a context relating to the textual content;
generating, from the textual content and the context, a prompt for a natural language model;
transmitting, to the natural language model, the prompt;
receiving, from the natural language model, a response to the prompt, wherein the response is associated with the request; and
providing, to the application, further textual content that is based on the response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. Applicant’s arguments [Remarks filed on 10/07/2025] are persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection made in the prior Office action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0372224 (hereinafter Azmoon) in view of U.S. 2024/0385885 (hereinafter Dhillon).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 18, Azmoon discloses a method for building a user interface comprising ([0042]; “…the aPaaS system can also build a fully-functional MVC application with client-side interfaces…”):
receiving, in a fist section of the user interface, a request to generate a user interface component, wherein the request indicates data usable to populate the user interface component ([0144-0146]; fig. 7A as shown below; “The dialog region 702 includes a first location 708 at which the conversation between the agent and the user is displayed. As shown, the agent has received a message 710 from the user that reads…”; and “The incident record region 704 includes an incident record. As shown, the incident record includes an incident number, a current owner of the incident (i.e., Agent X), a status of the incident (i.e., Open), a priority level of the incident (i.e., Medium), and a description of the incident (i.e., “User Y has been unable to access Server Z since 8:00 am on Aug. 10, 2017.”)…”);
PNG
media_image1.png
1247
1700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
providing, in the first section of the user interface, the representation of the user interface component for display ([0159]; fig. 7E; “FIGS. 7D and 7E depict window 700 in an example scenario in which the user assistance system updates the incident record. As shown in FIG. 7D, location 708 of the dialog region 702 includes a message 730 from the agent to the user indicating that Server Z has been fixed and requesting that the user restart the user's computer…”);
PNG
media_image2.png
1266
1702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in response to selection of the representation of the user interface component, adding, to a second section of the user interface, the representation of the user interface component ([0151]; “…To facilitate this, the user assistance system may be configured to include in the incident record region 704 a respective selectable GUI element corresponding to each component. In such embodiments, the user assistance system may highlight the selectable components or otherwise emphasize/indicate the selectable components in some other manner”).
While Azmoon discloses the feature of utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) related techniques ([0120]), the reference does not explicitly disclose the features of generating a prompt for a natural language model based on the request and the data; and generating, via the natural language model based on the prompt, a representation of the user interface component, wherein the representation of the user interface component comprises a structure format interpretable into a graphical form. However, Dhillon discloses that “…When a process node is associated with an automation, the system may then generate a prompt for an LLM based on the automation, which may cause the LLM to generate proposals for modifying data objects in the process node. The proposals generated by the LLM may be written in natural language to more easily allow a user to understand the proposals…” ([0051]). Dhillon discloses that “…The prompt generation service 164 can generate prompt information 125 for a language model, such as LLM 175. As described in further detail below with respect to FIGS. 17A-17B, the prompt generation service 164 may generate the prompt information 125 based on the user interaction data 130, the process information 120, one or more automations stored in the automation store 166, and/or the visualization information 140…” ([0096]).
PNG
media_image3.png
1206
1771
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dhillon additionally discloses that “FIG. 7A illustrates an example GUI 700 for presenting a graph-based visualization of a process to a user, for example by a display in communication with the user system 170. In some implementations, the GUI 700 may comprise some or all of a filter portion 702 providing information associated with the process data 162, for example the time a last updated process information 120 was received by the graph-based visualization system 150; a process overview comprising the graph-based representation of the process including a first node 704 representing a first state of the process…” ([0193-0194]; fig. 7A as shown above) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Dhillon in the system of Azmoon in view of the desire to enhance the Customer Relationship Management operation by generating an interactive graphic user interface resulting in improving the efficiency of creating a custom user interface. Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Azmoon: [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein the request includes the data usable to populate the user interface component (Azmoon: [0146]; fig. 7C).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein generating the representation of the user interface component based on the prompt comprises receiving generating a plurality of different representations of the user interface component based on the prompt (Azmoon: [0158-0159]; fig. 7D) and (Dhillon: [0193-0194]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 4 and 19 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 and 18, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein providing the representation of the user interface component for display comprises providing the representation of the user interface component for display in a dialog box (Azmoon: figs. 7A-7D).
Regarding claim 6, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein the representation of the user interface component is encoded in extensible Markup Language, JavaScript Object Notation, HyperText Markup Language, or Yet Another Markup Language. However, such feature is well known in the art as disclosed by Azmoon ([0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein the natural language model is a transformer-based language model (Dhillon: [0057]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 8, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein providing the representation of the user interface component for display comprises providing a description of the representation in a text string with an adjustable option (Dhillon: fig. 7A), the method further comprising:
receiving a further request to generate a further user interface component, wherein the further request indicates further data usable to populate the further user interface component, and wherein the further request is based on a selected value for the adjustable option; generating a further prompt for the natural language model based on the further request and the further data; generating, via the natural language model based on the further prompt, a further representation of the further user interface component; and providing the further representation of the further user interface component for display (Azmoon: [0154 and 0159]; figs. 7A-7D) and (Dhillon: [0096 and 0193-0194]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 9, Azmoon in view of Dressler discloses the method further comprising:
receiving a further request to describe a further user interface component, wherein the further request indicates further data used to populate the further user interface component; generating a further prompt for the natural language model based on the further request and the further data; generating, via the natural language model based on the further prompt, a description of the further user interface component; and providing the description of the further user interface component for display (Azmoon: figs. 7A-7D) and (Dhillon: [0096 and 0193-0194]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 11, Azmoon in view of Dhillon disclose the method wherein the suggested content comprises links to one or more documents or suggestions of further messages (Azmoon: [0146]; fig. 7C).
Regarding claim 12, Azmoon in view of Dhillon disclose the method wherein the representation of suggested content is provided in a listing of information positioned adjacent to the dialog, and wherein the listing of information is updatable based on messages displayed in the dialog (Azmoon: [0146 and 0152]; figs. 7A-7C).
Regarding claim 13, Azmoon in view of Dressler disclose the method wherein at least some of the suggested content is manipulatable into the dialog (Dhillon: [0152-0154]; figs. 7A-7C).
Regarding claim 14, Azmoon in view of Dhillon disclose the method further comprising:
storing, in a cache, associations between messages of the dialog and corresponding representations of suggested content; and in response to a user interface event involving a change to the messages of the dialog being displayed, updating, from the cache, the representations of suggested content displayed to be those associated with the messages of the dialog being displayed (Azmoon ([0047, 0150 and 0158]).
Regarding claim 15, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein the user interface event is a scrolling event that resulted in the change to the messages of the dialog being displayed (Azmoon: [0146-0147 and 0152]; figs. 7A-7C).
Regarding claim 16, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method wherein updating, from the cache, the representations of suggested content displayed to be those associated with the messages of the dialog being displayed comprises updating the representation of suggested content displayed without providing a further prompt to the natural language model to receive further suggested content (Azmoon: [0155-0156]) and (Dhillon: [0051 and 0096]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 10, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 17, Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the method further comprising: determining that a further message of the dialog refers to an item in a workflow of a task-based application; and providing, for display in the user interface as part of the suggested content, a further representation of the item (Azmoon: [0112 and 0159]).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Azmoon in view of Dhillon discloses the applicant’s claimed invention as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
14. 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 MONICA M PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, APU MOFIZ can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/MONICA M PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights