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 application filed on 12/06/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, "the link" is recited with no antecedent basis in claim 1. Thus, the examiner recommends amending the claim to depend on claim 9 which recites "a link".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
The limitations to “determining, based on an associated graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components, a set of one or more placement locations for inserting the new graphical component”, as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “displaying, via the graphical programming interface, a plurality of existing graphical components that provide functionality for at least one computer program thread, displaying, on the graphical programming interface, the set of one or more placement locations.” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely displaying data/information. Further the additional element “receiving data indicating a selection of a new graphical component for inserting into the plurality of existing graphical components and” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “displaying, via the graphical programming interface, a plurality of existing graphical components that provide functionality for at least one computer program thread, displaying, on the graphical programming interface, the set of one or more placement locations.” the courts have identified merely displaying data/information on a display is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation “receiving data indicating a selection of a new graphical component for inserting into the plurality of existing graphical components and” the courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2 recites receiving limitation which is extra-solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and/or akin to Receiving or transmitting data over a network see MPEP 2106.05(d) and further recites adding limitation which is a mental step. Claim 3 further recites receiving limitation which is extra-solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and/or akin to Receiving or transmitting data over a network see MPEP 2106.05(d), further recites determining limitation which is a mental step, and displaying limitation which is also insignificant extra solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data display see MPEP 2106.05(d) while the wherein limitation is non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 4 further recites determined last edited graphical component which is a mental step and not patent eligible. Claim 5 non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 further recites receiving limitations which are extra-solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and/or akin to Receiving or transmitting data over a network see MPEP 2106.05(d) and further recites adding limitation which is a mental step. Claim 7 further recite a determining limitation which is a mental step and not patent eligible along with a displaying limitation which is insignificant extra solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data display see MPEP 2106.05(d) while the wherein limitation is non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 8 further recites a determining step which is a mental step and not patent eligible while the wherein limitation is non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 9 recites non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 10 recites the redirecting to another interface similar to displaying limitation which is also insignificant extra solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data display see MPEP 2106.05(d) and in response to receiving selection data which is similar to receiving limitation which is extra-solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and/or akin to Receiving or transmitting data over a network see MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim 11 recites the displaying limitation which is also insignificant extra solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data display see MPEP 2106.05(d) and recites mental step of populating a dialog box with intended use. Claim 12 recites receiving limitation which is extra-solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and/or akin to Receiving or transmitting data over a network see MPEP 2106.05(d), further recites the displaying limitation displaying limitation which is also insignificant extra solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data display see MPEP 2106.05(d), and recites a mental step of combining components that is not patent eligible. Claim 13 recites launching and executing limitations which are “apply it” steps which merely implements an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 14 recites modifying limitation which is a mental step and not patent eligible, further recites executing limitation which is an “apply it” step which merely implements an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and further recites wherein limitations which is non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 15 recites executing and pausing limitations which are “apply it” steps which merely implements an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 16 recites an “apply it” step which merely implements an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 17 recites executing limitation which is an “apply it” step which merely implements an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and the displaying limitation displaying limitation which is also insignificant extra solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data display see MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim 18 recites non-functional descriptive language that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent Claims 19-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 for having similar limitations. Claims 19-20 further recites generic components including a processor and/or memory which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-2, 4, 7-8 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sammons discloses
A computer-implemented method for editing a graphical program using a graphical programming interface, the method comprising:
displaying, via the graphical programming interface, a plurality of existing graphical components that provide functionality for at least one computer program thread (Sammons Fig. 4B discloses Toolbox via a GUI illustrated in Fig. 4B with Elements 407 that may be dragged and dropped on layout 411. Where the for one computer program thread is being interpreted as intended use, thus no explicit rejection provided);
receiving data indicating a selection of a new graphical component for inserting into the plurality of existing graphical components (Sammons [0077]-[0079] disclose and Fig. 4C illustrates highlighted APEX Action selected in element menu 426 for insertion with the plurality of other existing graphical components);
displaying, on the graphical programming interface, the set of one or more placement locations (Sammons [0079]-[0080] discloses and illustrates the set of add element UI components 418 illustrated in Fig. 4D).
Sammons lacks explicitly
determining, based on an associated graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components, a set of one or more placement locations for inserting the new graphical component
Chen teaches
determining, based on an associated graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components, a set of one or more placement locations for inserting the new graphical component (Chen [0052] in step S307, the processor determines a bonding position of the first program block based on a pattern and a position of the target program block and the first program block, and bonds the first program block to the bonding position); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sammons to incorporate the teachings of Chen to “determining, based on an associated graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components, a set of one or more placement locations for inserting the new graphical component” in order to efficiently identify correct placement locations and prevent components from being placed incorrectly and causing system halts.
Regarding claim 2,
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving data indicating a selected placement location from the set of one or more placement locations (Sammons [0076] discloses clicking on add element UI component 418 from the set of one or more placement locations illustrated in Fig. 4C): and
adding the new graphical component into the plurality of existing graphical components based on the selected placement location (Sammons Fig. 4C and Fig. 4D illustrated adding the APEX Action element based on the selected location 418).
Regarding claim 4,
The method of claim 1, wherein the associated graphical component is a graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components determined to be a last edited graphical component (Sammons Fig. 4D illustrates the APEX Action element 432 to be the last edited component in the Flow 430 as the last element is an End element of the Flow).
Regarding claim 7,
The method of claim 2, wherein adding the new graphical component further comprises:
determining, automatically, one or more connections between the new graphical component and one or more graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components (Sammons Fig. 4D illustrates the automatic connection 416 between the APEX Action element added with the For Each Loop 414); and
displaying one or more connections between the new graphical component and the one or more graphical components (Sammons Fig. 4D illustrates connection 416 between the APEX Action 432 and For Each Loop element 414),
wherein the one or more connections indicate data flow, processing flow, or both, between the new graphical component and the one or more graphical components (Sammons Fig. 4D illustrates the processing flow through connection 416-c between the APEX Action Element 432 and the For Each Loop element 414 vs connection 416-b going to the end element).
Regarding claim 8,
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more placement locations comprises determining, based on rules associated with the new graphical component and/or the associated graphical component, one or more locations in the plurality of existing graphical components in which the new graphical component can be added (Sammons [0030] discloses In some implementations, the layout engine operates according to spacing rules to generate a loop element that visually encompasses the desired element(s), which improves clarity of the layout through the use of consistent spacing. The spacing rules can be applied to automatically and dynamically format a loop element as elements are selected for addition to the loop), and
wherein displaying the one or more placement locations comprises determining a layout for displaying the one or more placement locations and the plurality of existing graphical components (Sammons [0030] discloses In accordance with various implementations, a layout engine provides a click-based layout generation tool that enables users to request that an element be added to a layout. The layout engine dynamically positions, in real-time, the element and associated connectors within the layout to prevent colliding or overlap of connectors, elements, and associated text).
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, it’s directed to an apparatus having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Bossek et al. (US 2020/0004555 A1) hereinafter Bossek.
Regarding claim 3, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving data indicating a second graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components near where the selected graphical component to the plurality of existing graphical components may be added (Sammons [0087] discloses and Fig. 4F illustrates the For Each element 414 added to the process 450 which includes receiving data for additional graphical components 454 to the existing graphical components);
determining, based on the second graphical component, a second set of one or more placement locations for inserting the new graphical component into the plurality of existing graphical components near the second graphical component (Sammons Fig. 4F illustrates determining the middle 418 and end 418 placement locations. Where the examiner is interpreting the for language as intended use and no explicit rejection is provided); and
displaying, on the graphical programming interface, the second set of one or more placement locations (Sammons Fig. 4F illustrates the middle 418 and end 418 placement locations),
Sammons lacks explicitly
wherein the second graphical component is a graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components determined to overlap the new graphical component in the graphical programming interface compared to other associated positions of the remaining existing graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components.
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the second graphical component is a graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components determined to overlap the new graphical component in the graphical programming interface compared to other associated positions of the remaining existing graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components (Bossek [0045] teaches the additional function block 213 is made to overlap with the planar region of the function block 207 already selected in which the additional function block is dropped to interconnect the two function blocks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Bossek to “wherein the second graphical component is a graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components determined to overlap the new graphical component in the graphical programming interface compared to other associated positions of the remaining existing graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components” in order to reduce data processing, increase simplicity and transparency understanding the system and reduce functions and connections in the programming interface (Bossek [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
receiving data indicating selection of a combining graphical component for combining two or more graphical components;
displaying a prompt to select two or more graphical components of a plurality of existing graphical components; and
combining two or more graphical components based on a selection of two or more graphical components.
Bossek teaches
receiving data indicating selection of a combining graphical component for combining two or more graphical components (Bossek [0019] teaches selecting the first and second function blocks to be combined);
displaying a prompt to select two or more graphical components of a plurality of existing graphical components (Bossek [0030] and [0033] teaches a prompt to interconnect a first and second function block to form a combined function block); and
combining two or more graphical components based on a selection of two or more graphical components (Bossek [0046]-[0047] teaches the combined function block 215 based on selection of function blocks 207 and 213 illustrated in Figs. 2b-2c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Brown to “receiving data indicating selection of a combining graphical component for combining two or more graphical components; displaying a prompt to select two or more graphical components of a plurality of existing graphical components; and combining two or more graphical components based on a selection of two or more graphical components” in order to reduce data processing, increase simplicity and transparency understanding the system and reduce functions and connections in the programming interface (Bossek [0049]).
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Golub (US 2021/0132757 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sammons in view of Chen teaches The method of claim 1,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the new graphical component is associated with code and the code is configured with one or more parameters
Golub teaches
wherein the new graphical component is associated with code (Golub [0042] teaches transform nodes 220 may include code written by a user that performs operations over data) and the code is configured with one or more parameters (Golub [0046] properties menu 320 which enables component customization as illustrated in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Golub to “wherein the new graphical component is associated with code and the code is configured with one or more parameters” in order to increase flexibility and customization, improve user-friendliness and accessibility, increase modularity and code reuse, and improve product visualization.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Sridhar et al. (US 10,999,164 B1) hereinafter Sridhar.
Regarding claim 6, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving data indicating a selection of an event-driven graphical component (Sammons [0078]-[0079] discloses selecting Apex action type from add element interface 422 as illustrated in Fig. 4C);
receiving data indicating placement of the event-driven graphical component (Sammons [0078]-[0079] discloses placing Apex action element 432 at add element UI component 418 as illustrated in Figs. 4E-4D);
adding the event-driven graphical component (Sammons Fig. 4D illustrates the added APEX action element 432) and
the combination lacks explicitly
automatically adding a termination graphical component connected to the new graphical component; and
adding, automatically, one or more parameters associated with the event-driven graphical component and the termination graphical component to a structure in memory.
Sridhar teaches
automatically adding a termination graphical component connected to the new graphical component (Sridhar Fig. 22 illustrates adding the End component connected to the Investigate component); and
adding, automatically, one or more parameters associated with the event-driven graphical component and the termination graphical component to a structure in memory (Sridhar [col. 196, lines 63-65] teaches saving the playbook in database in association with one or more user accounts. Further Sridhar [col. 198, lines 66-67] and [col. 199, lines 1-11] teaches user creating custom code function block by modifying the block with user specifying one or more input parameter and output variables associated with custom code function block. Further, Sridhar [col. 199, lines 32-36] teach during execution of the playbook, for example, one or more output variables associated with a custom code function block can be saved to global state associated with the playbook's execution and can be used by other blocks by referring to defined names for the output variable(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Sridhar to “automatically adding a termination graphical component connected to the new graphical component; and adding, automatically, one or more parameters associated with the event-driven graphical component and the termination graphical component to a structure in memory.” in order to efficiently store parameter data for later access and permit improved debugging and quick fixes.
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2022/0405068 A1) hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 9, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses
The method of claim 1,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein at least one graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components comprises a link.
Brown teaches
wherein at least one graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components comprises a link (Brown [0045] teaches the action component 310a may include a link that references other instructions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Brown to “wherein at least one graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components comprises a link” in order to increase visual clarity and reduce clutter, improve accessibility, enhance user engagement and improve intuitive navigation.
Regarding claim 10, Sammons in view of Chen discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
redirecting to another interface in response to selection of the link.
Brown teaches
redirecting to another interface in response to selection of the link (Brown teaches the link may be a uniform resource locator that references a remote site or file having instructions that may be incorporated within the framework of the corresponding action component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Brown to “redirecting to another interface in response to selection of the link” in order to increase visual clarity and reduce clutter, improve accessibility, enhance user engagement and improve intuitive navigation.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Sridharan et al. (US 2019/0079737 A1) hereinafter Sridharan.
Regarding claim 11, Sammons in view of Chen discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
displaying on the graphical programming interface, in response to a selection of at least one graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components, a dialog box, wherein:
the dialog box is automatically populated with one or more options for data that can be input to code associated with the at least one graphical component based on data from code associated with graphical components that will be executed prior to the code associated with the at least one graphical component.
Sridharan teaches
displaying on the graphical programming interface, in response to a selection of at least one graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components, a dialog box (Sridharan [0073] teaches displaying dialog box in response to selection of add form elements as illustrated in Fig. 15), wherein:
the dialog box is automatically populated with one or more options for data that can be input to code associated with the at least one graphical component based on data from code associated with graphical components that will be executed prior to the code associated with the at least one graphical component (Sridharan Fig. 15 illustrates the dialog box automatically populated with one or more options. Where the for language is intended use and thus, the examiner has not provided an explicit rejection for the intended use language).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Sridharan to “displaying on the graphical programming interface, in response to a selection of at least one graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components, a dialog box, wherein: the dialog box is automatically populated with one or more options for data that can be input to code associated with the at least one graphical component based on data from code associated with graphical components that will be executed prior to the code associated with the at least one graphical component” in order to increase modularity and reusability, improve input validations, and provide clear task flow.
Claims 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Ghasemizadeh et al. (US 2018/0173503 A1) hereinafter Ghasemizadeh.
Regarding claim 13, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
executing code associated with the new graphical component (Sammons [0061] discloses executing the flow including the computer-readable instructions corresponding to elements of the layout representing the layout. Where the flow is traversed and executed based on the order of the elements determined on user selections) and/or code associated with one or more of the plurality of existing graphical components when a condition is met (No rejection required due to and/or language).
the combination lacks explicitly
launching the at least one computer program thread in response to input
Ghasemizadeh teaches
launching the at least one computer program thread in response to input (Ghasemizadeh [0010] teaches the first graphical block receives a third trigger input signal while the first thread is being executed, thereby generating a second thread); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Ghasemizadeh to “launching the at least one computer program thread in response to input” in order to prevent wasted computing resources by executing threads unnecessarily.
Regarding claim 17, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying data on the graphical programming interface, wherein the data is an output of the executed code (Sammons [0063] discloses presenting via client device the generated data upon completion of flow execution).
the combination lacks explicitly
executing code of the at least one computer program thread associated with one or more graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components
Ghasemizadeh teaches
executing code of the at least one computer program thread associated with one or more graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components (Ghasemizadeh [0010] and [0044]-[0045] teaches the first graphical block receives a third trigger input signal while the first thread is being executed, thereby generating a second thread which executes the graphical programming code); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Ghasemizadeh to “launching the at least one computer program thread in response to input” in order to improve user interface responsiveness, simplify communication and have a cleaner program design.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Ghasemizadeh et al. (US 2018/0173503 A1) hereinafter Ghasemizadeh and further in view of VENKATARAMAN et al. (US 2018/0357048 A1) hereinafter VENKATARAMAN.
Regarding claim 14, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
modifying a structure corresponding to the at least one computer program thread based on adding the new graphical component and/or the selected placement location of the new graphical component; and
executing the at least one computer thread by executing pre-compiled code associated with the new graphical component and pre-compiled code of the at least one computer program thread associated with the plurality of existing graphical components,
wherein the pre-compiled code associated with the new graphical component is configured with one or more parameters determined by the selected placement location of the new graphical component.
Ghasemizadeh teaches
modifying a structure corresponding to the at least one computer program thread based on adding the new graphical component (Ghasemizadeh [0044] teaches Similarly, manipulation of an input-output interface of a GUI can create, build and/or update a corresponding graphical program.) and/or the selected placement location of the new graphical component (No rejection required due to “or” language); and
executing the at least one computer thread by executing pre-compiled code associated with the new graphical component and pre-compiled code of the at least one computer program thread associated with the plurality of existing graphical components (Ghasemizadeh [0113] teaches A graphical program may be represented in the memory of the computer system as data structures and/or program instructions. These data structures and/or program instructions representing the graphical program may be compiled or interpreted to produce machine language that accomplishes the desired method or process as shown in the graphical program.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Ghasemizadeh to “modifying a structure corresponding to the at least one computer program thread based on adding the new graphical component and executing the at least one computer thread by executing pre-compiled code associated with the new graphical component and pre-compiled code of the at least one computer program thread associated with the plurality of existing graphical components” in order to increase dynamic updates, improve execution speed and responsiveness, improve modularity and maintainability, along with optimize resource usage.
VENKATARAMAN teaches
wherein the pre-compiled code associated with the new graphical component is configured with one or more parameters determined by the selected placement location of the new graphical component (VENKATARAMAN claim 7 teaches wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: modify an attribute of the configurable component, wherein the attribute includes a presence or absence of the configurable component, a position of the configurable component, or a dimension of the configurable component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of VENKATARAMAN to “wherein the pre-compiled code associated with the new graphical component is configured with one or more parameters determined by the selected placement location of the new graphical component” in order to simplify maintenance, improve code reusability, permit dynamic customization and accelerate development.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Eksten et al. (US 2018/0329693 A1) hereinafter Eksten.
Regarding claim 15, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
executing code of the at least one computer program thread associated with one or more graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components in response to input; and
pausing execution of the at least one computer program thread automatically upon completing execution of code associated with the one or more graphical components.
Eksten teaches
executing code of the at least one computer program thread associated with one or more graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components in response to input (Eksten [0212] teaches Component 24 lifecycle actions include, for example, realize (components load native libraries and perform self-setup, such as allocating memory and reading properties), pre-process 1 and pre-process 2 (components send their output data type information through the graph, and any components that need data type information block until they receive it), sources start (source components start transmitting data, components process data coming through their input pins)); and
pausing execution of the at least one computer program thread automatically upon completing execution of code associated with the one or more graphical components(Eksten [0212] teaches sources stop (source components stop transmitting data and processing continues until all data has passed through the graph), abort (a signal is sent to all components to cease activity and pass the abort signal to their threads, and threads may exit their run loop as soon as possible), and finish (all components are inactive and all data transmission and processing has stopped)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Eksten to “executing code of the at least one computer program thread associated with one or more graphical components of the plurality of existing graphical components in response to input; and pausing execution of the at least one computer program thread automatically upon completing execution of code associated with the one or more graphical components.” in order to simplify thread management, improve data integrity and error prevention.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Gould (US 2019/0146763 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
indicating a graphical component on the graphical programming interface during execution of code associated with the graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components.
Gould teaches
indicating a graphical component on the graphical programming interface during execution of code associated with the graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components (Gould [0183] teaches indicating by a dark line around component 308 which is being executed by the system as illustrated in Fig. 7D. Where the remaining blocks that are not being executed are not indicated by a dark line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Gould to “indicating a graphical component on the graphical programming interface during execution of code associated with the graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components” in order to improve user experience/satisfaction and understanding of system execution.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammons (US 2022/0253411 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0050462 A1) and further in view of Alabes et al. (US 11,775,261 B2) hereinafter Alabes.
Regarding claim 18, Sammons in view of Chen combination discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein a first graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components is connected to a second graphical component of the plurality of existing graphical components (Sammons Fig. 4D illustrates first graphical component connected to second graphical component in Flow 430),
wherein a position of the second graphical component directly connected below the first graphical component represents that code associated with the second graphical component is a sub-step of code associated with the first graphical component (Sammons Fig. 4D illustrates the APEX action element 432 to be a sub-step of code associated with For Each element 414).
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein a position of the first graphical component directly connected to the left of the second graphical component represents that code associated with the first graphical component will be executed before code associated with the second graphical component is executed,
wherein a position of the second graphical component directly connected above the first graphical component represents that code associated with the second graphical component is executed in response to an error during execution of code associated with the first graphical component, and
Alabes teaches
wherein a position of the first graphical component directly connected to the left of the second graphical component represents that code associated with the first graphical component will be executed before code associated with the second graphical component is executed (Alabes Fig. 5 illustrates elements 524 and 532 to the left of 536 that must be executed first where 536 enables the reviewer to fulfill the loan after processing the loan in elements 524 and 532),
wherein a position of the second graphical component directly connected above the first graphical component represents that code associated with the second graphical component is executed in response to an error during execution of code associated with the first graphical component (Alabes Fig. 5 illustrates element 524 above element 532 and when element 532 is not approved then element 524 is executed again), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Alabes to “wherein a position of the first graphical component directly connected to the left of the second graphical component represents that code associated with the first graphical component will be executed before code associated with the second graphical component is executed, wherein a position of the second graphical component directly connected above the first graphical component represents that code associated with the second graphical component is executed in response to an error during execution of code associated with the first graphical component, and” in order to provide accurate management and informed decision making can enhance enterprise profits. Some management systems improve corporate performance by managing and optimizing a company's processes. Such systems enable organizations to be more efficient and effective (Alabes [col. 1, lines 16-23]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center. 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.Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193