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 responsive to the application 18/999,424 filed on December 23, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-2, 8-9, 15 (hereafter “examined claim”) are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-16 (hereafter “copending claim”) of copending Application No. 18/999,383 (reference application US 2025/0130790). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the copending claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 teaches the limitations of the examined claims 1, 8, 15 (see claims comparison table below). Thus, the copending claim teaches substantially the similar limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: “accessing a user interface component tree defining user interface components of the software application” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “identifying, based on the modification request, a plurality of reusable software packages associated with the software application, each reusable software package including a different modification to the software application” in the copending claims [i.e. identifying (thus, accessing process should be done prior to the identifying process) each reusable software package, which includes a user interface of the software application, including a different modification (it is considered as a user interface component tree for the modification)]; and “implementing the modified version of the software application” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “causing presentation of the modified version of the software application” in the copending claims [i.e. the causing presentation process which can be considered as the implement process for the modified version of the software application]. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 2, 9 recite limitations similar to those of the copending claims 7, 14 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examined claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving a user interface modification request for a software application;
accessing a user interface component tree defining user interface components of the software application;
modifying the user interface component tree based on the modification request by at least one of: adding a new user interface component, modifying an existing user interface component, or removing a user interface component;
generating a modified version of the software application based on the modified user interface component tree; and
implementing the modified version of the software application.
Examined claim 8
A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a user interface modification request for a software application;
accessing a user interface component tree defining user interface components of the software application;
modifying the user interface component tree based on the modification request by at least one of: adding a new user interface component, modifying an existing user interface component, or removing a user interface component;
generating a modified version of the software application based on the modified user interface component tree; and
implementing the modified version of the software application.
Examined claim 15
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving a user interface modification request for a software application;
accessing a user interface component tree defining user interface components of the software application;
modifying the user interface component tree based on the modification request by at least one of: adding a new user interface component, modifying an existing user interface component, or removing a user interface component;
generating a modified version of the software application based on the modified user interface component tree; and
implementing the modified version of the software application.
Copending claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the reusable software packages modifies a user interface of the software application by at least one of: adding a new user interface component, modifying an existing user interface component, or removing a user interface component.
Copending claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving a modification request to modify a software application;
identifying, based on the modification request, a plurality of reusable software packages associated with the software application, each reusable software package including a different modification to the software application;
executing the plurality of reusable software packages along with source code of the software application to generate a modified version of the software application; and
causing presentation of the modified version of the software application.
Copending claim 9
The system of claim 8, wherein at least one of the reusable software packages modifies a user interface of the software application by at least one of: adding a new user interface component, modifying an existing user interface component, or removing a user interface component.
Copending claim 8
A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a modification request to modify a software application;
identifying, based on the modification request, a plurality of reusable software packages associated with the software application, each reusable software package including a different modification to the software application;
executing the plurality of reusable software packages along with source code of the software application to generate a modified version of the software application; and
causing presentation of the modified version of the software application.
Copending claim 16
The machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein at least one of the reusable software packages modifies a user interface of the software application by at least one of: adding a new user interface component, modifying an existing user interface component, or removing a user interface component.
Copending claim 15
A machine-readable medium storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by a processor of a system, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a modification request to modify a software application;
identifying, based on the modification request, a plurality of reusable software packages associated with the software application, each reusable software package including a different modification to the software application;
executing the plurality of reusable software packages along with source code of the software application to generate a modified version of the software application; and
causing presentation of the modified version of the software application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see PTO-892).
US 10,235,156 issued to Johnson et al., teaches customizations may be provided in graphical user interface (GUI) of software applications using user interface modules that integrate with extension points associated with the GUI.
US 10,915,303 issued to Back et al., teaches providing an integrated development and modification system.
US 2013/0024851 issued to Firman et al., teaches determining multiple application versions of a software application targeted for a computing device.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4242. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571)272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MINH CHAU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights