DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities. The claim recites the limitation “A non-transitory computer implemented storage medium that stores machine-readable instructions executable by at least one processor for creating an app including an app user interface (UI), the machine-readable instructions comprising”. The preambles is silent with respect to the instructions being executed by the processor to perform a method. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “A non-transitory computer implemented storage medium that stores machine-readable instructions which when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform a method for creating an app including an app user interface (UI), the method comprising” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-12 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Claim 14 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1, 13 and 14 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method of creating an app including an app user interface (UI), the method comprising:
providing an app development UI of an app development platform to a user for developing the app;
receiving image data including at least one digital image and/or structural data;
determining at least one set of UI information from the image data using a trained model, wherein a respective set of UI information includes one or more UI elements and/or one or more arrangements of the respective UI element;
receiving target app information indicative of at least one target parameter of the app UI via the app development UI;
determining at least one match of the at least one set of UI information with the respective target parameter;
determining the app UI using the at least one match; and
developing the app using the app UI.
Claim 13:
A non-transitory computer implemented storage medium that stores machine-readable instructions executable by at least one processor for creating an app including an app user interface (UI), the machine-readable instructions comprising:
providing an app development UI of an app development platform to a user for developing the app;
receiving image data including at least one digital image and/or structural data;
determining at least one set of UI information from the image data using a trained model, wherein a respective set of UI information includes one or more UI elements and/or one or more arrangements of the respective UI element;
receiving target app information indicative of at least one target parameter of the app UI via the app development UI;
determining at least one match of the at least one set of UI information with the respective target parameter;
determining the app UI using the at least one match; and
developing the app using the app UI.
Claim 14:
A computer system for creating an app including an app user interface (UI), the computer system comprising:
a processor coupled with a memory, the processor configured to
provide an app development UI of an app development platform to a user for developing the app,
receive image data including at least one digital image and/or structural data,
determine at least one set of UI information from the image data using a trained model, wherein a respective set of UI information includes one or more UI elements and/or one or more arrangements of the respective UI element,
receive target app information indicative of at least one target parameter of the app UI via the app development UI,
determine at least one match of the at least one set of UI information with the respective target parameter, and
determine the app UI using the at least one match;
wherein the app is developed using the app UI; and
a display configured to
display the app UI to the user via the app development UI.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the at least one set of UI information further includes one or more properties of the respective UI element, wherein a respective property of the respective UI element includes at least one of a color scheme, a bounding box, a font style, and/or an interactive state of the respective UI element.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the trained model includes a computer vision algorithm, and
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the respective UI element and a respective arrangement of the UI respective element from a respective digital image using the computer vision algorithm.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the structural data includes one or more color schemes, font styles, bounding boxes, information on an UI arrangement, and/or interactive states.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the trained model includes a large language model, and
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the respective UI element and a respective arrangement of the respective UI element from the respective digital image and/or structural data using the large language model.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the trained model includes a computer vision algorithm,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the respective UI element and the respective arrangement of the UI respective element from a respective digital image using the computer vision algorithm; and
wherein the image data includes at least one digital image and structural data, respectively, and wherein the trained model is a multi-modal trained model including the computer vision algorithm and the large language model.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
providing preconfigurable types of the respective UI information, wherein optionally the preconfigurable types depend on a type of the app; and
determining the sets of UI information from the image data using the trained model and using the preconfigurable types.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the target app information includes at least one of information on functional safety, accessibility, or security requirements the app needs to comply with, information on functional safety, accessibility, or security requirements a target device on which the app is to be deployed and operated needs to comply with, a functionality of the app or the target device, a look and feel of the app, first user input information on changes to be made to at least one of the digital images, or any combination thereof.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
displaying the app UI to the user via the app development UI;
receiving second user input indicative of an amendment to the respective target parameter of the app UI via the app development UI;
determining a respective amended target parameter using the second user input; and
determining the at least one match of the at least one set of UI information with the respective amended target parameter.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein image data of one sample UI is received, and
wherein the received target app information is indicative of reproducing a part of the one sample UI.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
training the trained model using at least one of a first user input, a second user input, a determined intersection of union of UI elements included in the app UI, or any combination thereof.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes following rules or instructions for app user interface development, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0016-0020, 0025-0029, 0047-0050, 0073, 0080-0081, 0087-0091, 0111, 0136-0148). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
deploying the app on a target device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0110706 A1 (“Votintseva”).
Claims 1, and 13-14:
Votintseva discloses:
A non-transitory computer implemented storage medium that stores machine-readable instructions executable by at least one processor for creating an app including an app user interface (UI), the machine-readable instructions comprising [a processor coupled with a memory, the processor configured to; a display configured to] (Fig.6; 0135-0146)
providing an app development UI of an app development platform to a user for developing the app; (0028-0030, 0133)
receiving image data including at least one digital image and/or structural data; (0035, 0066, 0077, 0080-0082, 0119-0120, 0127)
determining at least one set of UI information from the image data using a trained model, wherein a respective set of UI information includes one or more UI elements and/or one or more arrangements of the respective UI element; (0032, 0034-0035, 0039, 0056, 0064, 0069, 0076, 0080, 0083-0084, 0119-0120, 0123, 0127, 0129)
receiving target app information indicative of at least one target parameter of the app UI via the app development UI; (0028, 0032, 0035, 0043-0044, 0089-0090, 0102, 0110, 0112, 0117, 0121-0123)
determining at least one match of the at least one set of UI information with the respective target parameter; (0024, 0036-0037, 0069, 0096, 0113, 0123, 0125, 0129)
determining the app UI using the at least one match; and (0037, 0049, 0123-0124)
developing the app using the app UI. (0050-0051, 0053, 0133)
Claim 2:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
wherein the at least one set of UI information further includes one or more properties of the respective UI element, wherein a respective property of the respective UI element includes at least one of a color scheme, a bounding box, a font style, and/or an interactive state of the respective UI element. (0034, 0055, 0057-0061, 0065, 0120, 0125)
Claim 3:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
wherein the trained model includes a computer vision algorithm, and (0080-0084, 0119)
wherein the method further comprises: determining the respective UI element and a respective arrangement of the UI respective element from a respective digital image using the computer vision algorithm. (0080-0084, 0119, 0123, 0129)
Claim 4:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
wherein the structural data includes one or more color schemes, font styles, bounding boxes, information on an UI arrangement, and/or interactive states. (0058-0059, 0066, 0077, 0119-0121, 0127, 0129)
Claim 5:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
wherein the trained model includes a large language model, and (0076-0079)
wherein the method further comprises: determining the respective UI element and a respective arrangement of the respective UI element from the respective digital image and/or structural data using the large language model. (0076-0078, 0084-0085)
Claim 6:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 5. Votintseva further discloses:
wherein the trained model includes a computer vision algorithm, (0080-0084, 0119)
wherein the method further comprises: determining the respective UI element and the respective arrangement of the UI respective element from a respective digital image using the computer vision algorithm; and (0080-0084, 0119, 0123, 0129)
wherein the image data includes at least one digital image and structural data, respectively, and wherein the trained model is a multi-modal trained model including the computer vision algorithm and the large language model. (0066, 0084, 0096, 0127, 0129)
Claim 7:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
providing preconfigurable types of the respective UI information, wherein optionally the preconfigurable types depend on a type of the app; and (0039, 0046, 0056, 0071-0072, 0075)
determining the sets of UI information from the image data using the trained model and using the preconfigurable types. (0039, 0046, 0064, 0071-0072)
Claim 8:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
wherein the target app information includes at least one of information on functional safety, accessibility, or security requirements the app needs to comply with (0034, 0058, 0072, 0105-0106, 0113), information on functional safety, accessibility, or security requirements a target device on which the app is to be deployed and operated needs to comply with (0058, 0072, 0075, 0106), a functionality of the app or the target device (0055-0057, 0063, 0075), a look and feel of the app (0031, 0041, 0072), first user input information on changes to be made to at least one of the digital images (0043-0044, 0066, 0089-0090), or any combination thereof.
Claim 9:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
displaying the app UI to the user via the app development UI; (0040-0041, 0091, 0094, 0124)
receiving second user input indicative of an amendment to the respective target parameter of the app UI via the app development UI; (0043-0045, 0089-0091, 0094)
determining a respective amended target parameter using the second user input; and (0045-0047, 0090-0091)
determining the at least one match of the at least one set of UI information with the respective amended target parameter. (0048-0049, 0091-0092, 0123, 0125)
Claim 10:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
wherein image data of one sample UI is received, and (0066, 0080-0081, 0086, 0088, 0119, 0127)
wherein the received target app information is indicative of reproducing a part of the one sample UI. (0066, 0086-0088, 0119)
Claim 11:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
training the trained model using at least one of a first user input, a second user input, a determined intersection of union of UI elements included in the app UI, or any combination thereof. (0079, 0083, 0113, 0129-0130)
Claim 12:
Votintseva discloses all limitations of claim 1. Votintseva further discloses:
deploying the app on a target device. (0031, 0073-0075)
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0370236 A1 to Huiting discloses: For an improved managing of an app, a computer-implemented method includes: providing an app development user interface of an app development platform to a user; capturing the user's intent to import a respective event artifact from a respective deployed and running producing app; importing the respective event artifact corresponding to the captured user's intent to the app development UI; developing the app through the app development UI using the imported respective event artifact; deploying and running the developed app on a target device; importing event information corresponding to the respective event artifact from the respective producing app to a data storage platform; providing the event information imported to the data storage platform from the data storage platform to the deployed and running app; and applying an app algorithm comprised by the deployed and running app on the provided event information to generate output data.
US 2020/0326914 A1 to Koelewijn discloses: A computer-implemented method of creating an app and a computer system arranged and configured to execute the acts of the computer-implemented method are provided. The computer-implemented method includes: providing an app development user interface (UI) to a user for developing the app; providing a search UI to the user for searching in a repository for storing artifacts which are reusable for app development; capturing the user's search intent in response to user interactions with the search UI; importing at least one artifact corresponding to the captured user's search intent from the repository to the app development UI; and developing the app through the app development UI by using the imported at least one artifact.
US 2020/0380415 A1 to Siracusa et al. discloses: The subject technology provides for determining that a machine learning model in a first format includes sufficient data to conform to a particular model specification in a second format, the second format corresponding to an object oriented programming language), wherein the machine learning model includes a model parameter of the machine learning model. The subject technology transforms the machine learning model into a transformed machine learning model that is compatible with the particular model specification. The subject technology generates a code interface and code for the transformed machine learning model, the code interface including code statements in the object oriented programming language, the code statements corresponding to an object representing the transformed machine learning model and the object includes an interface to update the model parameter. Further, the subject technology provides the generated code interface and the code for display in an integrated development environment (IDE), the IDE enabling modifying of the generated code interface and the code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights