DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 25 February 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 10, and 15 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered, and are persuasive, particularly the arguments at page 18 of the Remarks that the prior art of record fails to teach or otherwise suggest the recited limitations detailing user modifications to graphical elements. An updated prior art search was conducted, as necessitated by amendment. Examiner analyzed amended Claim 1 (similarly claim 15) in view of the prior art of record and the updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is updated and detailed below. The prior art rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that amended independent claims 1 and 15 are not directed to generic data gathering methods, but provide a specific mechanism for real-time synchronization between user interactions with a product feature of a software application that solves the technical problem of data fragmentation by synchronizing the real-world user drag input interaction with the graphical interface with the first data entity of the issue tracking system. Applicant further asserts that the amended claim language describes a specific functional relationship between spatial interaction with the graphical user interface to cause an automatic and real-time update to the first data entity in a manner that is a nonconvention way to manage projects and representing a technical improvement to the field of user interaction data retrieval, storage, and analysis. Applicant asserts that the additional elements recited in the amended independent claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing for continuous aggregation, in real time, of user interactions in a manner that improves existing issue tracking systems and amounts to significantly more than any recited abstract idea, and render the claims patent subject matter eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per the Specification at [0043] “the aggregator application118 comprises a survey application and/or a feedback application, configured to provide results of a survey of users of a product or feedback of users of a product respectively, for example and in particular users of the product application”; [0047] :the product system120 provides a software as a service (SaaS) application (product application122 of Figure 1) to a plurality of customers … The active users interact with the product system”; [0050] “In embodiments including a survey or user feedback system, the data aggregator system116 may receive user interactions, in particular responses to survey questions or user feedback, from a client system102 operated by the users. In that case the user interactions of p users responding to the survey or providing the feedback creates the source insight data 1-p”; [0058] “The insight data may represent or form the basis for a graphical output of the aggregator system116. For example, a graphical output representing insight data {1-n; 1-m} of use of product feature over time, may be in the form of a graph or plot with time as the independent variable (typically horizontal axis) and number of product feature uses as the dependent variable (typically vertical axis).”; [0090] “In some embodiments the timeline view of the screen display1300 provides a user interface allowing a user to adjust one or more variables displayed in the timeline view. An example of a variable is the end date for an idea. A user may operate a user input device, for example a click and point device, to drag the end of a bar representing an idea to a different location in the timeline.”
Per the Specification the data input, aggregation, visualization, and manipulation steps are part of the abstract idea itself (collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis). The user interaction with the graphical elements to modify data visualization or analysis related to product issues is not an improvement to the underlying computing elements used to implement the recited abstract idea. The claimed drag input step is construed as insignificant extra solution activity because it merely provides updated data for data processing and visualization. Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The Specification and the claims fail to detail technical steps that improve the computer processor or other technologies for data retrieval, storage, and analysis. As a result, the amended claim language does not confer patent subject matter eligibility and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a process, and independent claim 15 recites a process for maintaining data entities defining a plurality of issues for an issue tracking system. Independent claims 1 and 15 recite substantially the same limitations.
Taking independent claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations:
maintaining, in a data storage that is readable by a first computer processing system implementing an issue tracking system, data entities defining a plurality of issues for the issue tracking system, the data entities comprising a first data entity defining information for a first issue and a second data entity defining information for a second issue different to the first issue;
receiving, by the first computer processing system, link request information for material accessible by a second computer processing system, the second computer processing system different to the first computer processing system, the link request information comprising at least one identifier, the at least one identifier identifying the second computer processing system and the material, the material comprising data generated in response to user interactions with at least one product feature, the user interactions received by a third computer processing system operating a software application having the at least one product feature;
updating, by the first computer processing system, the first data entity with the at least one identifier; and
in accordance with receiving, by the first computer processing system, a first input corresponding to a request to display a first graphical user interface for the first issue:
determining, based on a comparison of the at least one identifier with information for the first issue defined within the first data entity, that the first issue is linked to the material;
generating, based on the determination that the first issue is linked to the material, a request for the material, wherein the request for the material identifies information defined in the first data entity for the first issue and corresponding to the material;
transmitting, to the second computer processing system, the request for the material;
receiving, from the second computer processing system, the material; and
displaying the first graphical user interface for the first issue, wherein the first graphical user interface includes display of at least one of the material and information based on the material;
receiving, a second input corresponding to a request to display a second graphical user interface different than the first graphical user interface; and
in response to receiving the second input, displaying the second graphical user interface comprising: a first bar associated with the first issue and extending along a first axis corresponding to at least a time variable, the first bar: based at least in part on the material; and extending by a first distance to a first end date, the first end date corresponding to a first issue end date for the first issue within the first data entity; and
receiving a third input corresponding to a drag input received at the first bar in the second graphical user interface; and
in response to receiving the third input: causing the first bar to extend along the first axis by a second distance to a second end date for the first issue, the second distance corresponding to the drag input; and
updating, in real-time, the first issue end date within the first data entity based on the extension of the first bar by the second distance to the second end date for the first issue.
Under Step 1 independent claims 1 and 15 recite at least one step or act, including maintaining data entities defining a plurality of issues for the issue tracking system. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One the limitations recited in claim 1 for maintaining data entities, receiving link request information, updating one first data entity, determining that the first issue is linked to the material, generating a request for the material, transmitting the request for the material, receiving the material, and displaying at least one of the material and information based on the material, receiving a second input corresponding to a request to display a second graphical user interface, displaying the second graphical user interface comprising a first bar, receiving a third input corresponding to a drag input, causing the first bar to extend along the first axis, and updating the first issue end date in real time, as drafted, illustrates a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis). None of the additional elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. A project manager could monitor and track SaaS customer survey responses and feedback to create data entities related to issues communicated in the feedback and surveys, document the source of the feedback and survey data, link information to identified issues, and generate a report for business decision making without the use of a computer. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea.
Because the maintained data entries relate to a product system that provides a software as a service (SaaS) application to a plurality of customers (per the specification at [para. 0047]), and collecting survey and feedback data from customers, the claims reasonably fall within the fundamental economic principles or practices grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited steps for receiving link request information to material comprising user survey responses, comments, and feedback, receiving a first input corresponding to a request to display, transmitting the request for material (product user survey responses, comments, and feedback), receiving the material, receiving a second input corresponding to a request to display, displaying a first bar associated with the first issue, and receiving a third input corresponding to a drag input, are data gathering steps that merely provide input for the processing steps, and are construed as insignificant extra-solution activity. Outputting data is transmitting data. Obtaining data is receiving data. The additional limitation directed to transmitting the request, receiving the material, and “displaying” the graphical user interface for the first issue constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2A Prong Two the judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor, storage device, and interface for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0120] states: “System1200 is a general-purpose computer processing system.” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations or data associations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The steps for receiving a request to display and receiving the material is construed as the recitation of the computer screen for displaying and the processor for moving data is not enough by itself to transform the exception into a patentable invention, because these limitations are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Per the Specification the data input, aggregation, visualization, and manipulation steps are part of the abstract idea itself (collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis). The user interaction with the graphical elements to modify data visualization or analysis related to product issues is not an improvement to the underlying computing elements used to implement the recited abstract idea. The claimed drag input step is construed as insignificant extra solution activity because it merely provides updated data for data processing and visualization. Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The Specification and the claims fail to detail technical steps that improve the computer processor or other technologies for data retrieval, storage, and analysis. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, storage device, and interface amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 include the abstract idea of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the mental process/fundamental economic activity abstract idea by describing how the received data is processed using aggregation, collecting data source information, and further associating received data with known data. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, independent claim 15 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1 - 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims would be allowable if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
An updated prior art search was conducted, as necessitated by amendment. Examiner analyzed amended Claim 1 (similarly claims 15) in view of the prior art of record and the updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is updated and detailed below. The prior art rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
The closest prior art, Buerk et al. (US 2019/0079966) and Puri et al. (US 2019/0097909) combined, discloses a device management system that collects and updates service ticket information (Burke et al. [para. 0036, 0080-0089, 0121-0122]), including summary information associated with the referenced event and a link to an external customer service ticket (Puri et al. [para. 0184-0190, 0260-0265, 0320-0325, 0451], that is searchable through filters and user query (Puri et al. [para. 0464, 0489]), and a user interface that shows a ticket service board and summary information (Buerk et al. [para. 0093-0094, 0105-0112; Fig. 19-23]). However, Burke et al. and Puri et al. combined fail to teach or otherwise disclose displaying the second graphical user interface comprising: a first bar associated with the first issue and extending along a first axis corresponding to at least a time variable, the first bar: based at least in part on the material; and extending by a first distance to a first end date, the first end date corresponding to a first issue end date for the first issue within the first data entity; and receiving a third input corresponding to a drag input received at the first bar in the second graphical user interface; and in response to receiving the third input: causing the first bar to extend along the first axis by a second distance to a second end date for the first issue, the second distance corresponding to the drag input, as amended herein. Moreover since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1 and 15 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements, including the features discussed above, would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of the prior art of record and any of the additional references would be improper to teach the claimed invention. As a result, claims 1-20 are eligible over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Appleyard (US 2013/0185624) – A direct manipulation event associated with a chart of an analytics report can be detected. The event can be a user interface input and the chart can be an information graphic. The graphic can be a graphically rendered HTML compliant element and a data set. The report can conform to a JAVASCRIPT OBJECT NOTATION (JSON) format. The analytics report can be presented within a browser. An action can be run responsive to the detecting. The action can be an immediate rendering of the graphic based on the event. When the action executes a request for data not in the data set data from a different data set can be obtained. When the action executes a request for data in the data set, the data from the data set can be automatically retrieved. The analytics data can be immediately rendered as a chart within the canvas element of an HTML document. Manipulation can trigger the visual modification of an information graphic. Visual modification can include, but is not limited to, combining two or more charts, dispersing a chart, adding a data set to a chart, removing a data set from a chart, and the like. Manipulation can include, but is not limited to, drag and drop, select, multiple select, hover, disperse, and the like. It should be appreciated that the visual modification is a presentation layer functionality and can be rendered immediately.
MacIntyre et al. (US 2008/0275744) - Systems and methods for processing and reporting information and data, such as business information, and more particularly, to systems, software, hardware, products, and processes for use by businesses, individuals and other organizations to collect, process, distribute, analyze and visualize information, including, but not limited to, business intelligence, data visualization, data warehousing, and data mining. Real-time monitoring of web site interactions allows users to modify and fine-tune their websites to maximize value realized and allow users to visually explore vast amounts of data in real-time by pointing and clicking to make queries, and to select data in, and present it through, multi-dimensional graphical representations, and to provide actionable intelligence to a user to allow the user to 1) evaluate the usability of the site; 2) assess modifications to the site; 3) improve conversion rates; 4) improve site performance; 5) improve customer satisfaction; 6) optimize marketing campaigns; 7) reduce customer session loss; and 8) forecast the potential return on a campaign or site change and prioritize investments.
Porath et al. (US 11,698,901) - a data analysis tool for facilitating iterative and exploratory analysis of large sets of data. In some embodiments a data analysis tool includes a graphical user interface through which an interactive set of field identifiers is displayed. Each of the listed field identifiers may reference fields associated with a set of events returned in response to a search query, the set of events including machine data produced by components within an information technology (IT) environment that reflects activity in the IT environment. In response to user selections of field identifiers included in the displayed set, a data analysis tool may cause display of manipulable visualizations based on values included in fields referenced by the selected field identifiers. he report generator supports drag-and-drop organization of fields to be summarized in a report. When a model is selected, the fields with available extraction rules are made available for use in the report. The user may refine and/or filter search results to produce more precise reports. The user may select some fields for organizing the report and select other fields for providing detail according to the report organization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights