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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 09/05/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 6, it recites “the tag for the data object”, however the independent claim for which it depends upon does not isolate a single instance of the data object nor does it isolate a single instance of the tag . More specifically, claim 1 discusses there are a plurality of tags that belong to each data object, but it never singles out one of the data object nor does it single out a single instance of a tag. Thus it is unclear which tag and which data object from the plurality for which the applicant is intending.
With regards to claim 7, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 6, since it does not resolve the deficiencies of claim 6.
With regards to claim 16, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 6 above.
With regards to claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 above.
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 1-5, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A method of generating deeply integrated presentation gadgets, comprising: generating, by one or more processors of a computing system using a transformer model, a tag for each data object of a plurality of data objects based on an output from the transformer model, the plurality of data objects associated with an information resource; generating, by the one or more processors, a presentation data structure for the information resource, the presentation data structure comprising one or more fields based on the corresponding tags of the one or more data objects of the plurality of data objects; selecting, by the one or more processors, based on the presentation data structure, an application interface from a plurality of application interfaces for presentation of the information resource; and presenting at a client device, by the one or more processors, the information resource using the selected application interface and the generated presentation data structure.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they
cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation,
judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating a plurality of data objects from an information resource and making a judgement for a tag associated with each evaluated data object, 2) evaluating one or more fields based on the corresponding tags of the one or more data objects and making a judgement on a presentation data structure, 3) making a judgment to select/identify an application interface based upon evaluating the presentation data structure.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“… by one or more processors of a computing system using a transformer model”, “… by the one or more processors,” – these additional elements are considered as merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“…output from the transformer model …” - database’ – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘Mere Data Gathering’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“presenting at a client device, by the one or more processors, the information resource using the selected application interface and the generated presentation data structure …” – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically, the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘’selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ (see Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception:
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“… by one or more processors of a computing system using a transformer model”, “… by the one or more processors,” – these additional elements are considered as merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“…output from the transformer model …” - database’ – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘Mere Data Gathering’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“presenting at a client device, by the one or more processors, the information resource using the selected application interface and the generated presentation data structure …” – these additional elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically, the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘’selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ (see Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-5 and 8-10
Claims 2-5 and 8-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (due to further limitations that remain directed to one of the ‘apply it’, ‘data manipulation’, ‘data gathering’ aspects explained above , such limitations including: ‘receiving …’, ‘generating … ‘, ‘transmitting’, ‘… updating …’, ‘… selecting …’, ‘presenting…’, ‘… detecting … ‘, ‘… by one or more processors’.
101 Analysis for claim 11
With regards to claim 11, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it does recite additional elements of “one or more memory devices”, however these additional elements are considered as merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient for integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and also the courts have found these additional elements to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 12-15 and 18-20
Claims 12-15 and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (due to further limitations that remain directed to one of the ‘apply it’, ‘data manipulation’, ‘data gathering’ aspects explained above , such limitations including: ‘receiving …’, ‘generating … ‘, ‘transmitting’, ‘… updating …’, ‘… selecting …’, ‘presenting…’, ‘… detecting … ‘, ‘… by one or more processors’.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘646’) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12131667 (hereinafter ‘667). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 1 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘646 since claim 1 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 2 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 2 of ‘646 since claim 2 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 3 of ‘646 since claim 3 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘646, claim 3 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 4 of ‘646 since claim 4 of ‘646 is broader than claim 3 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘646, claim 5 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 4 of ‘646 since claim 5 of ‘646 is broader than claim 4 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘646 since claim 6 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘646, claim 6 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 8 of ‘646 since claim 8 of ‘646 is broader than claim 6 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 6 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘646, claim 7 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 9 of ‘646 since claim 9 of ‘646 is broader than claim 7 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 7 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘646, claim 8 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 10 of ‘646 since claim 10 of ‘646 is broader than claim 8 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 8 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘646 since claim 11 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 12 of ‘646 since claim 12 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 13 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 3 of ‘646 since claim 13 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 14 of ‘646, claim 3 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 4 of ‘646 since claim 14 of ‘646 is broader than claim 3 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 15 of ‘646, claim 5 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 4 of ‘646 since claim 15 of ‘646 is broader than claim 4 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘646 since claim 16 of ‘646 is broader than claim 1 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 18 of ‘646, claim 6 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 8 of ‘646 since claim 18 of ‘646 is broader than claim 6 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 6 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 19 of ‘646, claim 7 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 9 of ‘646 since claim 19 of ‘646 is broader than claim 7 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 7 of ‘667.
With regards to claim 20 of ‘646, claim 8 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 10 of ‘646 since claim 20 of ‘646 is broader than claim 8 of ‘667. Thus the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 8 of ‘667.
Claims 7 and 17 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘646’) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12131667 (hereinafter ‘667) in view of Hsu et al (US Patent: 11393141, published: Jul. 19, 2022, filed: Sep. 29, 2020).
With regards to claim 7 of ‘646, claim 1 of ‘667 teaches the limitations of claim 7 of ‘646 except for updating the transformer model based on the selection ….
Yet Hsu et al teaches updating the transformer model based on the selection …. (column 6, lines 1-10, column 13, lines 30-45: based upon user feedback selection/corrections, the transformer model is updated accordingly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the transformer model and tag selection teachings of ‘667 , such that the selections would have been used as user feedback to update the transformer model, as taught by Hsu et al. The combination would have implemented an improved model by making use of user interactions for refinement.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘646, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 of ‘646 above.
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, 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 1-5, 8, 10-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oria et al (US Application: US 2022/0012406, published: Jan .13, 2022, filed: Jul. 7, 2020) in view of Appalaraju et al (“DocFormer: End-to-end-Transformer for Document Understanding”, published: October 2021, publisher: IEEE, pages: 973-983).
With regards to claim 1, D’Oria teaches A method of generating deeply integrated presentation gadgets, comprising:
generating, by one or more processors of a computing system using [an analysis model/algorithm], a tag for each data object of a plurality of data objects based on an output from the transformer model, the plurality of data objects associated with an information resource (paragraphs 0007, 0037 and 0038, paragraph 0057, Fig. 1, Fig. 12: using a system with a processor and memory, an intermediate electronic form is generated as a presentation data structure based on the plurality of data objects extracted, which also includes field data. It is noted that each data object is detected and each data object’s attributes are metadata which are used /entered into the intermediate file);
generating, by the one or more processors, a presentation data structure for the information resource, the presentation data structure comprising one or more fields based on the corresponding tags of the one or more data objects of the plurality of data objects (paragraphs 0007, 0034, 0037 and 0038, paragraph 0057, Fig. 12: an intermediate electronic form is generated as a presentation data structure based on the plurality of data objects extracted, which also includes field data. It is noted that each data object is not only logically ‘tagged’/marked as detected but each data object’s attributes (tagged information) are used and entered into the intermediate file as metadata. Additionally content in the document/information-resource (having field types such as to correlating elements/data that belong to “ input fields associated with labels indicating a selectable option (e.g., “Mark X or leave blank”), combinations of particular words (e.g., “Yes/No”), or other indicators as configurable elements, such as buttons or checkboxes” are associated functionally with population options with respect to the field type);
selecting, by the one or more processors, based on the presentation data structure, an application interface from a plurality of application interfaces for presentation of the information resource (Fig. 2, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, paragraph 0039: based upon the generation of an intermediate electronic form structure, a set of interfaces are selected for user viewing and subsequent selection/viewing. The interfaces include populated fields based on parsed content (which include fields) from the intermediate file format for the user to view for analysis/editing); and
presenting at a client device, by the one or more processors, the information resource using the selected application interface and the generated presentation data structure (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7: an interface such as an editor application interface is displayed based on the one or more data fields obtained for rendering and display in the editor interface and the intermediate form structure).
However D’Oria et al does not expressly teach generating … using a transformer model, a tag for each data object …
Yet Appalaraju et al teaches generating … using a transformer model, a tag for each data object …(page 975, Figure 5: classification tag(s)/label(s) is/are generated through data object recognition/detection in a document)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified D’Oria et al’s ability to use a document analysis algorithm to generate tagged information such as an identification/label for data objects and also generate further tag metadata of the data objects (such as type information/position information and also field type with population options) to place in an intermediate file (presentation data structure), such that the analysis to produce descriptive metadata/tags could been through use of document analysis of the transformer type algorithm, as taught by Appalaraju et al. The combination would have allowed D’Oria et al to have implemented a more accurate and effective way to detect/identify elements from a document.
With regards to claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising D’Oria et al teaches receiving an updated tag for at least one data object of the plurality of data objects, and replacing the generated tag for the at least one data object with the updated tag; and wherein the presentation data structure further comprises a second one or more fields based on the updated tag for the at least one data object (paragraph 0058: a data object having associated metadata/properties can be selected such that the properties/tags/metadata is updated/modified according to user modification input).
With regards to claim 3. The method of claim 1, D’Oria et al teaches wherein the presentation data structure is based on the plurality of data objects associated with the information resource (paragraphs 0027, 0028, 0033 and 0034: one or more data provider sources include one or more informational forms/documents and each of the documents include content attributes text blocks, labels, fields, etc).
With regards to claim 4. The method of claim 1, D’Oria et al teaches further comprising receiving, by the one or more processors from a provider device, a constraint for the one or more data fields of the application interface (Fig. 7: one or more constraint values associated with each of the fields in the interface are identified and displayed); and wherein presenting the application interface with the information resource at the client device is further based on the constraint received from the provider device (Fig. 7, paragraph 0027 and 0028: one or more constraint values associated with each of the fields in the interface are identified and displayed. It is noted that the values are a result of extracting from an information resource that can be from a provider).
With regards to claim 5. The method of claim 1, D’Oria et al and Appalaraju et al teaches wherein generating the presentation data structure for the information resource further comprises: selecting, by the one or more processors, a field type for a data object of the plurality of data objects based on the tag associated with the data object; generating, by the one or more processors, the presentation data structure to include a field having the field type in the one or more fields of the presentation data structure; and populating, by the one or more processors, the field having the field type based on the data object of the plurality of data objects, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (D’Oria et al’s ability to use a document analysis algorithm to generate tagged information such as an identification/label for data objects and also generate further tag metadata of the data objects (such as type information/position information and also field type with population options) to place in an intermediate file (presentation data structure) was modified such that the analysis that produces descriptive metadata/tags could been through use of document analysis of the transformer type algorithm, as taught by Appalaraju et al), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 8. The method of claim 1, D’Oria et al teaches wherein selecting the application interface of the plurality of application interfaces further comprises: receiving, by the one or more processors, a selection of a data object of the information resource from the client device presenting the information resource; and selecting, by the one or more processors, the application interface based on the one or more fields in the presentation data structure associated with the data object (Fig. 2, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, paragraph 0039: one or more fields associated with a data object is selected and visualized on display in an interface (such as an editor interface) for user reviewer and further interaction/input/configuration).
With regards to claim 10. The method of claim 1, D’Oria et al teaches wherein presenting the application interface with the information resource at the client device further comprises: presenting, by the one or more processors, the information resource at the client device in response to a request for the information resource, wherein the information resource comprises an actionable object; detecting, by the one or more processors, an interaction with the actionable object presented as part of the information resource; and presenting, by the one or more processors, the application interface in response to the interaction with the actionable object (Fig. 2, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, paragraph 0039: the information resource/document is presented at the client device after extraction and in response to user desire to edit the information resource. The information resource visualized on display includes actionable data objects for the requesting user to further edit/configure).
With regards to claim 11 D’Oria et al teaches a system for generating deeply integrated presentation gadgets, comprising: one or more processors in communication with one or more memory devices, the one or more processors configured to: generate, using a transformer model, a tag for each data object of a plurality of data objects based on an output from the transformer model, the plurality of data objects associated with an information resource, generate a presentation data structure for the information resource, the presentation data structure comprising one or more fields based on the corresponding tags of the one or more data objects of the plurality of data objects, select, based on the presentation data structure, an application interface from a plurality of application interfaces for presentation of the information resource, and present, at a client device, the information resource using the selected application interface and the generated presentation data structure, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The system of claim 11, D’Oria et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an updated tag for at least one data object of the plurality of data objects, and replace the generated tag for the at least one data object with the updated tag; and wherein the presentation data structure further comprises a second one or more fields based on the updated tag for the at least one data object, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The system of claim 11, D’Oria et al teaches wherein the presentation data structure is based on the plurality of data objects associated with the information resource, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The system of claim 11, D’Oria et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from a provider device, a constraint for the one or more data fields of the application interface; and wherein presenting the application interface with the information resource at the client device is further based on the constraint received from the provider device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The system of claim 11, D’Oria et al and Appalaraju et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: select a field type for a data object of the plurality of data objects based on the tag associated with the data object; generate the presentation data structure to include a field having the field type in the one or more fields of the presentation data structure; and populate the field having the field type based on the data object of the plurality of data objects, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The system of claim 11, D’Oria et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a selection of a data object of the information resource from the client device presenting the information resource; and select the application interface based on the one or more fields in the presentation data structure associated with the data object, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. The system of claim 11, D’Oria et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: present the information resource at the client device in response to a request for the information resource, wherein the information resource comprises an actionable object; detect an interaction with the actionable object presented as part of the information resource; and present the application interface in response to the interaction with the actionable object, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oria et al (US Application: US 2022/0012406, published: Jan .13, 2022, filed: Jul. 7, 2020) in view of Appalaraju et al (“DocFormer: End-to-end-Transformer for Document Understanding”, published: October 2021, publisher: IEEE, pages: 973-983) in view of Behar et al (US Patent: 9953009, issued: Apr. 24, 2018, filed: Dec. 19, 2014).
With regards to claim 9. The method of claim 1, D’Oria et al teaches … selecting the application interface of the plurality of application interfaces … to present the application interface with the information resource … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However D’Oria et al does not teach … receiving a selection of the application interface from a provider device, the selection indicating a request to present the application interface with the information resource.
Yet Behar et al teaches … receiving a selection of the application interface from a provider device, the selection indicating a request to present the application interface with the information resource (Claim 1: a provider/content-server provides a selection of one or more interfaces/layouts that to be used to present with an information resource/asset-data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified D’Oria et al and Appalaraju et al’s ability to take an application interface selection and presenting the application interface with the information resource data/content/asset-data, such that a provider can further influence how the information resource/asset-data would be presented using a selected and provided application interface, as taught by Behar et al. The combination would have allowed D’Oria et al to have presenting content/information in a manner for which the content/information was intended to be presented , even when client device characteristics vary (Behar et al, column 1, lines 10-27)
With regards to claim 19. The system of claim 11, D’Oria et al, Appalaraju et al’s wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a selection of the application interface from a provider device, the selection indicating a request to present the application interface with the information resource, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chellapilla et al (US Application: US 2004/018749): This reference teaches populating electronic forms from scanned documents.
Baird et al (US Application: US 2009/0313601): This reference teaches configuring and development of process bound widgets.
Horvitz et al (US Patent: 6581050): This reference teaches continually refining a model through observation of user activity.
Cook et al (US Patent: 6427063): This reference teaches an agent based instruction system that can take into context user interaction with a form and offer tools to the user based upon the interaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights