DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 17/935,393. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated July 30, 2025 Applicant submitted arguments and amendments, mail dated October 30, 2025. Applicant amended claim 1, 10, 18, and 22. Claim 3 and 9 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-22 are pending in this application.
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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement for consideration.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been considered. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-22 are pending in this application. Claim 1, 10, 18, and 19 are amended. Claims 3 and 9 is/are cancelled.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant’s amendments are persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection. Applicant amended claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-22 are rejected. See prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
Interview
On page 14 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant references the Interview that occurred on October 29, 2025 and summarizes items presented.
Examiner acknowledges the list summarizing the discussion held October 29, 2025. Examiner maintains no agreements were reached during the interview.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection
On page 15 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverses, claims 1,2, 4-8, and 10-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant references the interview held October 25, 2025 and the list of items presented – see page 14 of Applicant’s arguments. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments to the claims 1, 10 and 11 persuasive. Applicant amended claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, the amended claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong two. The Claims under step 2A prong are receiving feedback regarding source code which is a mental concept – observation, evaluation, and judgement. The claims recite the additional elements of: “system for real-time feedback data collection associated with contributions to a software platform, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured”, “by a feedback management device and to a source code repository system associated with the software platform, a configuration indicating one or more parameters associated with a custom callback via an application programming interface (API), that is configured with the transmitted configuration”, “by the feedback management device from the source code repository system, and based on the callback, associated with the software platform”, “a pull request”. The additional elements are rooted in technology. The additional elements are applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, so the claims limitation are indicative of integration into a practical application at Step 2A prong 2. The claims are patent eligible.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on HUBSPOT and MUSCARA
On pages 15-17 Applicant traverses claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 1—13, 15 and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over HUBSPOT (An Intro to Git and GitHub for Beginners, 2020) and MUSCARA (The Beginner’s Guide to In-App Surveys for User Feedback, 2020). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant refers to the proposed amendments that were presented during the most recent interview. Applicant submits the cited references whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the amended claim limitations. Applicant submits, independent claims 1, 10, and 18. And the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of the applied references. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 10-13, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on HUBSPOT and MUSCARA.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments. The Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection below.
On page 17 of the Applicant’s arguments Applicant states claims 5 and 8 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 14, 16, and 17 dependent from independent claim 10. Therefore, claims 5, 8, 14, 16, and 17 are patentable for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and 10 and for their additional distinguishing features.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments. The Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection below.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HubSpot (2020, An Intro to Git and GitHub for Beginners) in view of Muscara (2020, The Beginner’s Guide to In-App Surveys for User Feedback) and Chan (US 2023/0,418,577 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended)
A system for real-time feedback data collection associated with contributions to a software platform, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
HubSpot teaches when creating a new project on your local machine using Git, you’ll first create a new repository., HubSpot [Step 1].
….
receive, by the feedback management device from the source code repository system, … , associated with the software platform, an indication that a merge operation has completed, wherein the merge operation is related to changes to source code associated with the software platform have been being merged into the source code repository,
merging code into a primary branch using GitHub., HupSpot [Intro]
HubSpot teaches when creating a new project on your local machine using Git, you’ll first create a new repository., HubSpot [Step 1] and
HubSpot teaches Git is required to track changes to the file., HubSpot [Step 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
439
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HubSpot discloses if you want to add a new page to your website you can create a new branch just fir that age without affecting the main part of the project. Once you’re done with the page, you can merge your changes from your branch into the primary branch. Git keeps track of which commit your branch ‘branched’ off of, so it knows the history behind all the files., HubSpot [Step 5: Create a new branch]
wherein the changes to the source code are associated with a pull request submitted by one or more source code contributors, wherein the pull request is associated with one or more source code moderators, wherein the source code repository system is configured based on configuration parameters transmitted from the feedback management device, and wherein transmission of the configuration parameters cause the source code repository system to be configured to transmit the indication based on the configuration parameters; identify, by the feedback management device, in near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication that the merge operation has completed, and using the completion of the merge operation as a trigger, communication addresses associated with respective source code contributors, from the one or more source code contributors, and associated with respective source code moderators from the one or more source code moderators; generate, by the feedback management device, in the near real-time, and using the completion of the merge operation as the trigger, feedback survey request data based on roles associated with the respective source code contributors and roles associated with the respective source code moderators;
HubSpot discloses a pull request (or PR) and merge., HubSpot [Step 8]
PNG
media_image2.png
987
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
transmit, to the communication addresses, in the near real-time, and using the completion of the merge operation as the trigger, the feedback survey request data; within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication that changes to the source code associated with the software platform have been merged into the source code repository; receive feedback data in response to the feedback survey request data; store the feedback data in a database, wherein the feedback data is stored in connection with an identifier of the software platform and with an indication of a role of a user, from the one or more source code contributors or the one or more source code moderators, that provided the feedback data, wherein the feedback data is stored with an indication of a portion of the source code repository system that is related to the feedback data;
HubSpot teaches a log of recent changes that you or others have merged on GitHub. … Showing the files that have changed and how they’ve changes. Author and e-mails within the log., HubSpot [Step 10]
PNG
media_image3.png
702
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner submits a log of a repository is a feedback device; however, Examiner relies on Muscara to teach feedback survey.
Hubspot does not explicitly teach:
… transmit, by a feedback management device and to a source code repository system associated with the software platform, a configuration indicating one or more parameters associated with a custom callback via an application programming interface (API), that is configured with the transmitted configuration: … and based on the callback … survey request … periodically analyze, by the feedback management device, the stored feedback data to determine whether a value related to the feedback data satisfies a threshold; and automatically open an instance associated with a service desk application based on determining that the value related to the feedback data satisfies the threshold
Muscara discloses:
… feedback survey request data … transmit, …, the feedback survey request data within a threshold amount of time … periodically analyze, by the feedback management device, the stored feedback data to determine whether a value related to the feedback data satisfies a threshold; and automatically open an instance associated with a service desk application based on determining that the value related to the feedback data satisfies the threshold.
Muscara discloses in -app surveys without having to leave it (app.) Muscara discloses targets categorized as type, who, when, and frequency., Muscara [p.17, 15]
PNG
media_image4.png
871
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
924
755
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
951
1010
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
855
669
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Muscara discloses net promoter scoring, and thus, Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19]
PNG
media_image8.png
701
996
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Muscaro discloses a critical step when you send out surveys to your users is to close the user feedback loop. Whether you are sending NPS Surveys or Custom Surveys, it's important to get in touch with your respondents to let them know that their feedback was received, to thank them for their participation, or to ask for more details. This strengthens your relationship with your app users and motivates them to engage even more., Muscara [p.22]
PNG
media_image9.png
692
873
media_image9.png
Greyscale
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes, tools that integrate with Git, such as GitHub to share code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Chan teaches:
…. transmit, by a feedback management device and to a source code repository system associated with the software platform, a configuration indicating one or more parameters associated with a custom callback via an application programming interface (API), that is configured with the transmitted configuration: … the source code repository system, and based on the callback, associated with the software platform, an indication that a merge operation has completed, wherein the merge operation is related to changes to source code … device, in near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication that the merge operation has completed, and using the completion of the merge operation as a trigger, … in the near real-time, and using the completion of the merge operation as the trigger, …. wherein the feedback data is stored with an indication of a portion of the source code repository system that is related to the feedback data;
Chan [051] discloses a code process request is triggered by any event for which a code processing operation may be desired. Events may include, for example, a new object added to the group shared code repository, a change to an object in the group shared code repository, a timer requiring all open files to be updated
Chan [054] discloses the code processing operation monitoring module may be initiated in connection with other code processing processes such as, for example, code linking, code merging, publication or code release processes, code branching, indexing, and the like.
Chan [099] discloses the targeted group shared code repository 104 and/or the targeted file, library, and/or object; the metadata accompanying the code processing operation; and/or the like. The code processing operation monitoring circuitry 210 may further receive, detect, and/or analyze data returned by the group shared code repository 104 in response to code process requests. In some embodiments, the code processing operation monitoring circuitry 210 utilizes the communications circuitry 208b to transmit one or more Application Programming Interface (API) calls to one or more API servers associated with the noted client devices., [099], [0107].
Chan [0119] discloses at operation 406, the process 400 continues when the client repository device 110 receives the process time insight interface component generated based on the code processing period. … The code processing operation monitoring module 106 could register a callback function that is called upon completion of the code processing operation. Upon completion of the code processing operation, the code processing operation monitoring module 106 may compare the initial system data with the system data upon completion.
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Chan utilizes a code repository server to provide insights into various code processing periods associated with the development, maintenance, and storage of code by a group shared code repository. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes, tools that integrate with Git, such as GitHub to sharing code, as taught by HubSpot, with detecting a code process request triggering a code processing operation associated with the group shared code repository to improved efficiency in the management of a code repository server and overall improvements in the code development cycle. Chan [038].
Regarding Claim 2, (Original)
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: aggregate feedback data, from the database, that is associated with the software platform; determine one or more metrics based on the aggregated feedback data; and perform an action based on the one or more metrics.
See claim 1.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses net promoter scoring, and thus, Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 3, (Canceled)
Regarding Claim 4, (Original)
The system of claim 1, wherein the feedback survey request data includes: an indication of a first one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more source code contributors, …
See Claim 1 above, HubSpot discloses a merge pull request, roles/contributors/moderators: co-owner or sole ownership of a repository., HubSpot [Step 9], [Step 10].
Although highly suggested, HubSpot does not teach:
… and an indication of a second one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more source code moderators.
Muscara teaches:
… and an indication of a second one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more source code moderators.
Muscara discloses filtering survey responses by timeframe, keyword, specific user or NPS score., Muscara [p.19]
Muscara teaches targeting surveys: auto targeting, email targeting, manual targeting. And follow-up questions, Muscara [p.23]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using tips to boost in-app survey response rates (e.g., timing, segments, follow-up questions using a score, as taught by Muscara to gather qualitative feedback about your users and how they experience you app without them ever having to leave it. Muscara [p.12]
Regarding Claim 6, (Original)
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a request for data associated with the software platform or the source code repository; obtain, via the database, the data including the feedback data based on receiving the request; aggregate the data to determine one or more metrics associated with the data; and provide, in response to the request, an indication of at least one of the data or the one or more metrics.
See claim 1.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses net promoter scoring, and thus, Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 7, (Original)
The system of claim 6, wherein the one or more metrics include a net promoter score.
See claim 1.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses net promoter scoring, and thus, Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 9, (Canceled)
Regarding Claim 10, (Currently Amended)
A method for real-time feedback associated with contributions to a software platform, comprising: transmitting, by a server device and to a source code repository system associated with the software platform, a configuration indicating one or more parameters associated with a custom callback via an application programming interface (API), that is configured with the transmitted configuration; receiving, by the server device, from the source code repository system, and based on the callback, associated with the software platform, an indication that a merge operation, for source code associated with the software platform into the source code repository system, has completed, wherein the merge operation is associated with one or more users, wherein the source code repository system is configured based on configuration parameters transmitted from the server device, and wherein the transmission of the configuration parameters cause the source code repository system to be configured to transmit the indication based on the configuration parameters; identifying, by the server device, in near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication that the merge operation has completed, and using the completion of the merge operation as a trigger, communication addresses associated with respective users from the one or more users; generating, by the server device, in near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication that the merge operation has completed, and using the completion of the merge operation as the trigger, feedback survey request data based on roles associated with the respective users, wherein the feedback survey request data indicates one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more users; transmitting, by the server device and to the communication addresses, in-near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication that the merge operation has completed, and using the completion of the merge operation as the trigger, the feedback survey request data based on receiving the indication of the merge operation; receiving, by the server device, feedback data associated with a user, from the one or more users, in response to the feedback survey request data; storing, by the server device, the feedback data in a database, wherein feedback data is stored in connection with an identifier of the software platform and with an indication of a role of the users wherein the feedback data is stored with an indication of a portion of the source code repository system that is related to the feedback data; and performing, by the server device, one or more actions based on one or more metrics associated with data, including the feedback data, stored in the database, wherein the data is associated with at least one of the software platform or the source code repository system, and wherein the one or more actions include: periodically analyzing the stored feedback data to determine whether a value related to the feedback data satisfies a threshold; and automatically opening an instance associated with a service desk application based on determining that the value related to the feedback data satisfies the threshold.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
HubSpot teaches making changes to the code base, opening a pull request, and merging code into a primary branch using GitHub., HubSpot [Intro], [Step 1], [Step 2], [Step 5: Create a new branch], [Step 6], [Step 8], [Step 9], [Step 10]
Examiner submits a log of a repository is a feedback device; however, Examiner relies on Muscara to teach feedback survey.
Muscaro [p. 11-12, 17, 15, 19, 21 -22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using tips to boost in-app survey response rates (e.g., timing, segments, follow-up questions using a score, as taught by Muscara to gather qualitative feedback about your users and how they experience you app without them ever having to leave it. Muscara [p.12]
Chan [051], [054], [099], [0107], [0119]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Chan utilizes a code repository server to provide insights into various code processing periods associated with the development, maintenance, and storage of code by a group shared code repository. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes, tools that integrate with Git, such as GitHub to sharing code, as taught by HubSpot, with detecting a code process request triggering a code processing operation associated with the group shared code repository to improved efficiency in the management of a code repository server and overall improvements in the code development cycle. Chan [038].
Regarding Claim 11, (Previously Presented)
The method of claim 10, wherein performing the one or more actions further action comprises: aggregating the feedback data, from the database, based on querying the database using an indication of the software platform; and determining the one or more metrics based on the aggregated feedback data.
Similar to claim 2 - See claim 1.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to share code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 12, (Previously Presented)
The method of claim 10, wherein performing the one or more actions further action comprises: transmitting an indication of the one or more metrics to a management account associated with the software platform based on a value of the one or more metrics satisfying a threshold.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to share code, as taught by HubSpot, with measuring analytic threshold and using a dashboard, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 13, (Original)
The method of claim 10, wherein the one or more users include one or more contributors and one or more moderators, and wherein the feedback survey request data includes: an indication of a first one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more contributors, …
Similar to claim 4. See Claim 1 above, HubSpot discloses a merge pull request, roles/contributors/moderators: co-owner or sole ownership of a repository., HubSpot [Step 9], [Step 10].
Although highly suggested, HubSpot teaches:
and an indication of a second one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more moderators.
Muscara teaches:
…. and an indication of a second one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more moderators.
Muscara discloses filtering survey responses by timeframe, keyword, specific user or NPS score., Muscara [p.19]
Muscara teaches targeting surveys: auto targeting, email targeting, manual targeting. And follow-up questions, Muscara [p.23]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using tips to boost in-app survey response rates (e.g., timing, segments, follow-up questions using a score, as taught by Muscara to gather qualitative feedback about your users and how they experience you app without them ever having to leave it. Muscara [p.12]
Regarding Claim 15, (Previously Presented)
The method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving a request for the data, wherein the request includes an indication of at least one of the software platform or the source code repository system; obtaining, via the database, the data based on receiving the request; and providing, in response to the request, an indication of at least one of the data or the one or more metrics.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses net promoter scoring, and thus, Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to share code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 18, (Currently Amended)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a server device, cause the server device to: transmit, by a feedback management device and to a source code repository system associated with a software platform, a configuration indicating one or more parameters associated with a custom callback via an application programming interface (API), that is configured with the transmitted configuration; receive, from the source code repository system, and based on the callback, associated with a software platform, an indication of a merge operation completion for source code associated with the software platform into the source code repository system, wherein the merge operation is associated with one or more users, wherein the source code repository system is configured based on configuration parameters transmitted from the server device, and wherein the transmission of the configuration parameters cause the source code repository system to be configured to transmit the indication based on the configuration parameters; identify, in near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication of the merge operation completion, and using the merge operation completion as a trigger, communication addresses associated with respective users from the one or more users;generate, in near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication of the merge operation completion, and using the merge operation completion as the trigger, feedback survey request data based on roles associated with the respective users, wherein the feedback survey request data indicates one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more users; transmit, to the communication addresses, in near real-time within a threshold amount of time after receiving the indication of the merge operation completion, and using the merge operation completion as the trigger, the feedback survey request data based on receiving the indication of the merge operation; receive feedback data associated with a user, from the one or more users, in response to the feedback survey request data; store the feedback data in a database, wherein feedback data is stored in connection with an identifier of the software platform and with an indication of a role of the user; and perform one or more actions based on one or more metrics associated with data, including the feedback data, stored in the database, wherein the data is associated with at least one of the software platform or the source code repository system, and wherein the one or more actions include: periodically analyzing the stored feedback data to determine whether a value related to the feedback data satisfies a threshold; and automatically opening an instance associated with a service desk application based on determining that the value related to the feedback data satisfies the threshold.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
HubSpot teaches making changes to the code base, opening a pull request, and merging code into a primary branch using GitHub., HubSpot [Intro], [Step 1], [Step 2], [Step 5: Create a new branch], [Step 6], [Step 8], [Step 9], [Step 10]
Examiner submits a log of a repository is a feedback device; however, Examiner relies on Muscara to teach feedback survey.
Muscaro [p. 11-12, 17, 15, 19, 21 -22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using tips to boost in-app survey response rates (e.g., timing, segments, follow-up questions using a score, as taught by Muscara to gather qualitative feedback about your users and how they experience you app without them ever having to leave it. Muscara [p.12]
Chan [051], [054], [099], [0107], [0119]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Chan utilizes a code repository server to provide insights into various code processing periods associated with the development, maintenance, and storage of code by a group shared code repository. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes, tools that integrate with Git, such as GitHub to sharing code, as taught by HubSpot, with detecting a code process request triggering a code processing operation associated with the group shared code repository to improved efficiency in the management of a code repository server and overall improvements in the code development cycle. Chan [038].
Regarding Claim 19, (Previously Presented)
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the server device to perform the one or more actions, action, cause the server device to: transmit an indication of the one or more metrics to a management account associated with the software platform based on a periodic schedule.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses net promoter scoring, and thus, Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 20, (Original)
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the one or more users include one or more contributors and one or more moderators, and wherein the feedback survey request data includes: an indication of a first one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more contributors, and an indication of a second one or more survey questions to be provided to the one or more moderators.
HubSpot teaches log associated with the repository., HubSpot [Step 10] Examiner submits a log of a repository is a feedback device; however, Examiner relies on Muscara to teach feedback survey.
Muscara discloses in -app surveys without having to leave it (app.) Muscara discloses targets categorized as type, who, when, and frequency., Muscara [p.17, 15]; Muscara discloses net promoter scoring, and thus, Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19]
Muscaro discloses sending NPS Surveys or Custom Surveys, it's important to get in touch with your respondents to let them know that their feedback was received, to thank them for their participation, or to ask for more details., Muscara [p.22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using Instabug’s in-app surveys, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 21, (Previously Presented)
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: periodically aggregate feedback data associated with the software platform; determine one or more metrics based on the aggregated feedback data; and transmit data associated with the aggregated feedback data or the one or more metrics based on the one or more metrics satisfying a threshold value.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22] Examiner submits, the dashboard provides aggregated feedback.
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with measuring analytic threshold and using a dashboard, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Regarding Claim 22, (Currently Amended)
The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit an indication of the one or more metrics to a management account associated with the software platform
See Claim 1
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Muscara discloses analytics threshold (e.g., net promotor score: promotors, detractors, passives)., Muscara [p.21,19, 22]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with measuring analytic threshold and using a dashboard, to help collect focused feedback from users to make well-informed, data-driven decisions, Muscara [p.11-12]
Claim(s) 5 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HubSpot (2020, An Intro to Git and GitHub for Beginners) in view of Muscara (2020, The Beginner’s Guide to In-App Surveys for User Feedback) and Chan (US 2023/0,418,577 A1) and in further view of Pollfish (2020, Grouping and Shuffling in your Pollfish Questionnaire).
Regarding Claim 5, (Original)
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to generate the feedback survey request data, are configured to:
See Claim 1, HubSpot teaches a log of recent changes that you or others have merged on GitHub. … Showing the files that have changed and how they’ve changes. Author and e-mails within the log., HubSpot [Step 10]
Although highly suggested, HubSpot does not explicitly teach:
identify, for the role, a first one or more survey questions, from a set of survey questions associated with the role, that are included in all feedback survey request data associated with the role; and randomly select a second one or more survey questions from the set of survey questions associated with the role, wherein the first one or more survey questions and the second one or more survey questions are indicated by the feedback survey request data.
Muscara teaches:
… identify, for the role, a first one or more survey questions, from a set of survey questions associated with the role, that are included in all feedback survey request data associated with the role;
Muscara discloses filtering survey responses by timeframe, keyword, specific user or NPS score., Muscara [p.19]
Muscara teaches targeting surveys: auto targeting, email targeting, manual targeting., Muscara [p.23]
And… select a second one or more survey questions from the set of survey questions associated with the role, wherein the first one or more survey questions and the second one or more survey questions are indicated by the feedback survey request data.
Muscara discloses follow-up questions., Muscara [p.23]
PNG
media_image10.png
288
905
media_image10.png
Greyscale
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using tips to boost in-app survey response rates (e.g., timing, segments, follow-up questions using a score, as taught by Muscara to gather qualitative feedback about your users and how they experience you app without them ever having to leave it. Muscara [p.12]
Pollfish further teaches:
… randomly select a second one or more survey questions
PNG
media_image11.png
491
1026
media_image11.png
Greyscale
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Pollfish teaches randomization of questions and the distribution of questionnaires. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to share code, as taught by HubSpot, with shuffling within questions and shuffling questions within the group for even more randomized survey opportunities, as taught by Pollfish to minimize bias, Pollfish [p.1]
Regarding Claim 14, (Original)
The method of claim 10, wherein generating the feedback survey request data comprises: … selecting one or more survey questions, from a set of survey questions associated with the role of the user, to be provided to the user.
Similar to claim 5.
See Claim 1, HubSpot teaches a log of recent changes that you or others have merged on GitHub. … Showing the files that have changed and how they’ve changes. Author and e-mails within the log., HubSpot [Step 10]
Muscara discloses filtering survey responses by timeframe, keyword, specific user or NPS score., Muscara [p.19]
Muscara teaches targeting surveys: auto targeting, email targeting, manual targeting. And follow-up questions, Muscara [p.23]
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Muscara teaches collecting user feedback for customer validation and customer -driven development. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code, as taught by HubSpot, with using tips to boost in-app survey response rates (e.g., timing, segments, follow-up questions using a score, as taught by Muscara to gather qualitative feedback about your users and how they experience you app without them ever having to leave it. Muscara [p.12]
Pollfish further teaches:
… randomly selecting one or more survey questions
See image claim 4 above in claim 5 showing ransom questions.
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Pollfish teaches randomization of questions and the distribution of questionnaires. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to share code, as taught by HubSpot, with shuffling within questions and shuffling questions within the group for even more randomized survey opportunities, as taught by Pollfish to minimize bias, Pollfish [p.1]
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HubSpot (2020, An Intro to Git and GitHub for Beginners) in view of Muscara (2020, The Beginner’s Guide to In-App Surveys for User Feedback) and Chan (US 2023/0,418,577 A1) and in further view of Ramachandra (US 2021/0357209 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, (Original)
The system of claim 1, wherein the software platform is associated with an InnerSource operation.
See claim 1.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10]
Ramachandra teaches [0027] FIGS. 1A and 1B depict illustrative computing environment(s), client-server configurations, InnerSource computer machines, platform(s), and/or module(s), in accordance with one or more environments, for selectively providing limited access to and information about source in repositories in response to requests from users or client machines., [027] ,[044], [Figure 1]…; Ramachandra [044] discloses InnerSource functionality, provide or control access rights, manage resources, detect changes to open source code.
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Ramachandra teaches providing limited access to and information about software in source code repositories. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code and log code changes push and pulls, as taught by HubSpot, with detecting changes to open source code using InnerSource, as taught by Ramachandra, to or maintain[ing] information security and confidentiality while simultaneously facilitating software development., Ramachandra [044].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HubSpot (2020, An Intro to Git and GitHub for Beginners) in view of Muscara (2020, The Beginner’s Guide to In-App Surveys for User Feedback) and Chan (US 2023/0,418,577 A1) and in further view of Dattathreya (US 2013/0080997 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, (Original)
The method of claim 10, wherein storing the feedback data comprises: storing the feedback data, that is associated with the user, with an indication of: a team affiliation, and a department affiliation.
See Claim 1 above, HubSpot discloses a merge pull request,
roles/contributors/moderators: co-owner or sole ownership of a repository., HubSpot [Step 9], [Step 10].
PNG
media_image12.png
366
622
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Dattathreya further discloses:
an indication of: a team affiliation, and a department affiliation.
Dattathreya discloses author tags and POC tags, therefore the user roles and moderators and send e-mail alerts (survey), [072]-[074], [0142],[claim 7] and
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. Dattathreya teaches tracking and notifying related software, modules, and configuration files during software development and maintenance. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code and log code changes push and pulls, as taught by HubSpot, with tagging authors, as taught by Dattathreya, for tracking and notifying related software, modules, and configuration files during software development and maintenance., Dattathreya [005].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over HubSpot (2020, An Intro to Git and GitHub for Beginners) in view of Muscara (2020, The Beginner’s Guide to In-App Surveys for User Feedback) and Chan (US 2023/0,418,577 A1) and in further view of in view of PC Tools (AU 2007/202254 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, (Previously Presented)
The method of claim 10, wherein generating the feedback survey request data comprises: identifying a different user that is associated with the merge operation, … that is associated with the software platform or the source code repository system….
See claim 1.
HubSpot teaches source code repository and logs. HubSpot [Step 6], [Step 10] and
HubSpot discloses a merge pull request, roles/contributors/moderators: co-owner or sole ownership of a repository., HubSpot [Step 9], [Step 10].
Although highly suggested, HubSpot does not teach:
… wherein the different user is not included in the one or more users based on the different user being associated with a team… ; refraining from generating feedback survey questions for the different user based on the different user being associated with the team.
PC Tools teaches:
wherein the different user is not included in the one or more users based on the different user being associated with a team… ; refraining from generating feedback survey questions for the different user based on the different user being associated with the team.
PC Tools discloses if a -12member user does not yet have an associated member user weighting, for example if the member user is new, a default member user weighting can be allocated to the member user. … Non-member user 505 does not contribute to rating software products., PC Tools [051].
HubSpot teaches using Git and GitHub to track and mange changes to code base. PC Tools discloses weighted user feedback. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using remotes such as GitHub to shar[ing]e code and log code changes push and pulls, as taught by HubSpot, with new members being assigned a default feedback weight, as taught by PC Tools, to reduce biased rating., PC Tools [051].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bartfai-Walcott (CN 114253793 A) discloses configuration management.
Avila (US 2021/0089994 A1) discloses tracking capacity for the assignee, electronically assign new issues based on capacity and utilization.
Li (CN 112579097 A) teaches callback function.
Castilho (2019, Understanding JavaScript Callbacks and practices).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624