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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 01/02/2025.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled by the applicants.
Claims 21-40 are added by the applicants.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a site analyzer to generate a representative component for a cluster of multiple components of a website of a user having a user interface, according to an analysis of attributes of said multiple components; an editor UT builder to create a dynamically modified user interface from at least said representative component for a visual editor of said WBS used to edit said website; and a dynamic UI runner to generate and display said dynamically modified user interface, wherein said dynamic UI runner applies styles to components within said cluster of said representative component according to pre-defined cluster definitions in claim 21.
a page analyzer to filter and classify said multiple components on at least one of: a page and a partial page of said website; a component clusterer to create said cluster according to multi- dimensional attribute spaces and attributes of said multiple components; and a representative component generator to determine said representative component from said cluster in claim 22.
wherein said representative component generator determines in claim 23 and 24.
wherein said editor UI builder comprises: a searcher to search for query result components produced as a result of a user search request; a dynamic variants area section builder to build at least one dynamic variants area section according to said representative component, said query result components, pre-defined information and templates; and a menu generator to generate final menu hierarchies according to said at least one dynamic variants area section in claim 25.
a receiver to receive menu hierarchies; a style applier to receive and to apply styles from said user to components of said menu hierarchies; a component placer to place said components of said menu hierarchies into at least one dynamic area variants area section in a visual layout for menu selection; and an editing UI runner to run said menu hierarchies and create a display for said dynamically modified user interface according to said style applier and said component placer in claim 26.
wherein said editing UI runner performs modifications in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 21-30 are directed to a system. As recited, however, the system is reasonably interpreted as entirely software or descriptive material per se. The recited system does not include any hardware that would permit the functionality of the system to be realized. Thus, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.01. To overcome this type of rejection applicants may amend claims to include a hardware element such as a memory and a processor to perform the steps of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 28-34 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20130086496 to Baram et al. in view of USPN 20110023017 to Calvin.
Per claim 21:
Baram discloses:
21. (New) A system for a website building system (WBS), comprising:
a site analyzer to generate a representative component for a cluster of multiple components of (paragraph [0062-0063] “dynamically constructed based on an analysis of the components per page… FIG. 5. EMG 60 may comprise component analyzer 62, indexer 64 and menu builder 66. Component analyzer 62 may analyze the component information”)a website of a user having a user interface (paragraph [0061] “FIG. 4B, the pages and components A1 . . . C1 and corresponding components B1:1 and B1:2 etc. which may belong to different pages and mini-pages within page-based hierarchy 100… as they appear on the website… GUI 50”), according to an analysis of attributes of said multiple components (paragraph [0062] “based on an analysis of the components per page”);
an editor UI builder to create a dynamically modified user interface from at least said representative component for a visual editor of said WBS used to edit said website (paragraph [0092-0093] “completed EMMT 200 may be generated into GUI by EMR 70… EMR 70 is a parameterized GUI display sub-system which may display an active GUI based on the data structure as defined by EMMT 200… FIG. 11 which illustrates how GUI 50 for the newly created EMMT 200 may appear to a user” also see Fig. 5 and 11 and related discussion).
Baram does not explicitly disclose a dynamic UI runner to generate and display said dynamically modified user interface, wherein said dynamic UI runner applies styles to components within said cluster of said representative component according to pre-defined cluster definitions.
However, Calvin discloses in an analogous computer system a dynamic UI runner to generate and display said dynamically modified user interface (paragraph [0093] “the object editor (presented in a standard web browser 28) hosts web pages and objects that form the user interface for creating and managing websites… user interface elements within the object editor can be hosted in an AJAX standard web browser 28 with no client-side plugins”), wherein said dynamic UI runner applies styles to components within said cluster of said representative component according to pre-defined cluster definitions (paragraph [0082] “binding all object data together and lastly creating an HTML representation of the requested data. This technique allows all of a web site's objects to be treated and handled in a truly object-oriented manner on the server side while ultimately transforming them into the structural elements (HTML, CSS, Image files) needed by a web browser 28 to render and interact with end-users of the website”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of a dynamic UI runner to generate and display said dynamically modified user interface, wherein said dynamic UI runner applies styles to components within said cluster of said representative component according to pre-defined cluster definitions as taught by Calvin into the method of generating web based graphical applications as taught by Baram. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of dynamic UI runner to generate and display said dynamically modified user interface, wherein said dynamic UI runner applies styles to components within said cluster of said representative component according to pre-defined cluster definitions to provide an efficient technique in generating display/website content with the suggested components to build a sophisticated website so as to create and manage websites and their content effectively as suggested by Calvin (paragraph [0003-0008]).
Per claim 22:
Baram discloses:
22. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein said site analyzer comprises:
a page analyzer to filter and classify said multiple components on at least one of: a page and a partial page of said website (paragraph [0015] “determining includes filtering the components for relevance”);
a component clusterer to create said cluster according to multi-dimensional attribute spaces and attributes of said multiple components (paragraph [0057] “the arrangement of components within the website may be multidimensional, having both horizontal and vertical location”); and
a representative component generator to determine said representative component from said cluster (paragraph [0093] “newly created EMMT 200 may appear to a user… displayed and the user may select any menu entry representing a component”).
Per claim 23:
Baram discloses:
23. (New) The system of claim 22, wherein said representative component generator determines said representative component according to at least one of: geometric attribute parameters, average attribute dimensions and importance based criteria (Since this appears to be Markush type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Baram teaches paragraph [0057,0062] “arrangement of components within the website may be multidimensional, having both horizontal and vertical location… the geometrical parameters of all the components as well as their containment relationship”).
Per claim 24:
Baram discloses:
24. (New) The system of claim 22, wherein said representative component generator creates said representative component according to at least one of: geometrical location, a mathematical function of dimensions and importance based criteria if said cluster has no representative component (Since this appears to be Markush type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Baram teaches paragraph [0060] “GUI 10 which may offer a page view of the pertinent components may be flattened into a more linear view with a menu of ordered components based on their physical location within the website”).
Per claim 28:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Baram does not explicitly disclose at least one database to store at least one of: user information, website information, website editing history, business intelligence, templates, applications associated with said website and pre-defined information.
However, Calvin discloses in an analogous computer system at least one database to store at least one of: user information, website information, website editing history, business intelligence, templates, applications associated with said website and pre-defined information (Since this appears to be Markush type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Calvin teaches paragraph [0081] “All object configurations are stored in the database management system 58 to enforce data integrity, versioning, search and retrieval”; paragraph [0075] “database 58 views and forms as represented respectively by a Database Views class 106 and a Forms class 108”) .
The feature of providing at least one database to store at least one of: user information, website information, website editing history, business intelligence, templates, applications associated with said website and pre-defined information would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Per claim 29:
Baram discloses:
29. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein said dynamically modified user interface comprises at least one dynamic variants area panel and wherein each said at least one dynamic variants area panel comprises at least one dynamic variants area section (Fig. 1 and related discussion).
Per claim 30:
Baram discloses:
30. (New) The system of claim 29, wherein said at least one dynamic variants area section comprises an interface to a third party application (Fig. 1 and related discussion).
Claims 31-34 and 38-40 is/are the method claim corresponding to apparatus/system claims 21-24 and 28-40 respectively and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 21-24 and 28-40 respectively, as noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25+26 and 35+36 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 27 and 37 are objected by virtue of their respective dependencies on claims 26 and 36. Please note that if any of the claims are rejected under 101 above and/or objected for any reason, applicants must overcome the rejections and/or objections in order for these claims to be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Nestler, Tobias, Abdallah Namoun, and Alexander Schill. "End-user development of service-based interactive web applications at the presentation layer." Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems. 2011. pp. 197-206.
Li, Peng, and Eric Wohlstadter. "View-based maintenance of graphical user interfaces." Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development. 2008. pp. 156-167.
Myers, Brad, Scott E. Hudson, and Randy Pausch. "Past, present, and future of user interface software tools." ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7.1 (2000): 3-28.
US9286273 - A method and system for a site builder. The site builder is an application designed to create and edit websites for hosting providers, resellers and end users. Built with hosting in mind, the proposed site builder allows providers to easily offer site building capabilities to their customers. The easy five-step wizard interface provides for an effortless way for customers to create, modify and update their own websites without any technical skills or HTML know-how. The site builder application for LINUX/Unix or WINDOWS also comes with a comprehensive administration panel that allows providers to quickly and easily tailor the application to their needs.
US20110087966 - An apparatus for structuring web content including a structuring web server. The structuring web server includes a data collection server, a data analyzer, and a structured content server. The data collection server is configured to collect usage data associated with at least one user. The data analyzer is configured to generate improvement data based on the usage data. The structured content server is configured to send the improvement data to a browser associated with the at least one user. The browser uses the improvement data to alter a webpage displayed to the at least one user.
US7237002 - Collaboration space object model provides for a Place consisting of rooms. A room is made up of pages. Folders are used to organize pages. Members belong to rooms, and are those users authorized to access them. Place type controls the creation of a place, including how many rooms it has, for example. Room type controls the appearance and content of rooms. A form manages the display of data notes. A form can contain fields for containing data and employ scripts to process and compute data. A page is the basic vehicle for content. Content is created using an or importing content from an external source. A member is also a data note, and each place contains its own member directory. A place is created and managed from a client browser in on-line mode and in offline mode with respect to a replicated copy of the space. Room security is independently managed, and security and aesthetics characteristics of subrooms selectively inherited. Room navigation and workflow processing is provided, as are forms creation and uploading from browser to server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/Satish Rampuria/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
*****
