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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 14 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps 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 “determining, … a first code version including a first plurality of executable steps, the first plurality of executable steps including one or more triggers and one or more actions triggered by the one or more triggers; determining, …, a second code version including a second plurality of executable steps, the second plurality of executable steps including at least one change from the first plurality of executable steps; detecting, …, the at least one change between the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps including detecting a difference in a hidden configuration of a configurable step. the configurable step being present in both the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps. the hidden configuration of the configurable step not being displayed in a graphical user interface;” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” and “generating, by the processor, a graphical user interface including one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change including displaying a first graphical element indicating the difference in the hidden configuration; and providing, by the processor, the graphical user interface for display on a client device”. The additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “generating, by the processor, a graphical user interface including one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change including displaying a first graphical element indicating the difference in the hidden configuration; and providing, by the processor, the graphical user interface for display on a client device” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “generating, by the processor, a graphical user interface including one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change including displaying a first graphical element indicating the difference in the hidden configuration; and providing, by the processor, the graphical user interface for display on a client device” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 15 further define the first code version and second code version as part of the “determining” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process that can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 3 and 16 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps 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 “determining, …, a difference in execution of the second code version including a skipped step skipped the second code version and unskipped in the first code version, at least one of the one or more triggers and the one or more actions including the skipped step” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these 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.
Claims 4 and 17 further define the change as part of the “detecting” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process that can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 5 and 18 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps 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 “detecting the at least one change includes detecting a difference in the configuration of the step between the first code version and the second code version” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” and “displaying, by the processor in the graphical user interface, the second code version as a series of steps, a configurable step of the series of steps being configurable to define a configuration of at least one of the one or more triggers and the one or more actions, the configuration of the configurable step being hidden in the graphical user interface displaying the second code version”, “generating the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes displaying a first graphical element at the configurable step indicating that the configuration has changed in the second code version from the first code version”. The additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “displaying, by the processor in the graphical user interface, the second code version as a series of steps, a configurable step of the series of steps being configurable to define a configuration of at least one of the one or more triggers and the one or more actions, the configuration of the configurable step being hidden in the graphical user interface displaying the second code version”, “generating the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes displaying a first graphical element at the configurable step indicating that the configuration has changed in the second code version from the first code version” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “displaying, by the processor in the graphical user interface, the second code version as a series of steps, a configurable step of the series of steps being configurable to define a configuration of at least one of the one or more triggers and the one or more actions, the configuration of the configurable step being hidden in the graphical user interface displaying the second code version”, “generating the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes displaying a first graphical element at the configurable step indicating that the configuration has changed in the second code version from the first code version” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 19 further define the “generating” and “display” steps set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 20 further define the configuration as part of “generating” and “display” steps set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
The claims further define the “detect” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process that can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 8 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps 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 “determining a first step in the first plurality of executable steps that matches a second step in the second plurality of executable steps, the second step being unchanged from the first step” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” and “providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a first graphical element graphically displaying the first step; and providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a second graphical element graphically displaying the second step, the first graphical element being horizontally aligned with the second graphical element in the graphical user interface”. The additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a first graphical element graphically displaying the first step; and providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a second graphical element graphically displaying the second step, the first graphical element being horizontally aligned with the second graphical element in the graphical user interface” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a first graphical element graphically displaying the first step; and providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a second graphical element graphically displaying the second step, the first graphical element being horizontally aligned with the second graphical element in the graphical user interface” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 9 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps 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 “detecting the at least one change includes detecting two or more changed steps between the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps and determining that the two or more changed steps are consecutive” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” and “providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a plurality of third graphical elements graphically displaying the two or more changed steps; and the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes a graphical background displayed around the plurality of third graphical elements based on the two or more changed steps including a plurality of changed steps that are consecutive”. The additional elements “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a plurality of third graphical elements graphically displaying the two or more changed steps; and the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes a graphical background displayed around the plurality of third graphical elements based on the two or more changed steps including a plurality of changed steps that are consecutive” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element “a computer”, “a system,” “a processor,” “one or more processors,” “a computer-accessible memory storing instructions,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a plurality of third graphical elements graphically displaying the two or more changed steps; and the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes a graphical background displayed around the plurality of third graphical elements based on the two or more changed steps including a plurality of changed steps that are consecutive” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 10 further define the “generating” and “display” steps set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 11 -13 further define the graphical user interface as part of “generating” and “display” steps set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Seabra (US 7735062 B2) in view of Khoyi (US 20170322783 A1) further in view of Shukla (US 8170901 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, de Seabra (US 7735062 B2) teaches
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a first [code version] including a first plurality of executable steps, the first plurality of executable steps including one or more triggers and one or more actions triggered by the one or more triggers (Col 19: ln 29-34, The "Actions" element of a design model contains a set of individual "Action" elements. A design model can have any number of "Action" elements. Each "Action" element represents a sequence of procedural rules to be applied to data to be presented, stored or transmitted by the computer software system. Each "Action" defines a business rule sub-model; Col 19: ln 35-60, An "Action" element, for example, can contain the following XML elements and attributes …) Examiner Comments: Actions are executable steps with triggers (inputParameters) and actions (procedural rules triggered by inputs)
determining, by the processor, a second [code version] including a second plurality of executable steps, the second plurality of executable steps including at least one change from the first plurality of executable steps (Col 3: ln 62 – Col 4: ln 8, The step of comparing the modified design model includes the sub-steps of retrieving the original design model interface specification, parsing the original design model interface specification to create a first in memory representation of the design model interface specification; retrieving the modified design model interface specification; parsing the modified design model interface specification to create a second in memory representation of the design model interface specification) Examiner Comments: The second in memory representation of the design model is interpreted to the claimed second code version
detecting, by the processor, the at least one change between the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps (Col 4: ln 1-8, comparing the first and the second in memory representations to identify any elements that are deleted in the representation of the modified design model; and comparing the first and the second in memory representations to identify any elements that are changed in the representation of the modified design model);
generating, by the processor, a graphical user interface including one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change; and providing, by the processor, the graphical user interface for display on a client device (Col 6: ln 30-56, Facilitating the selection of elements of the most recently published version may include presenting a visual comparison of the elements, for example, a visual indication of new elements, changed elements, and deleted elements. The indicated action may be taken upon user confirmation).
De Seabra did not specifically teach
Code version
including detecting a difference in a hidden configuration of a configurable step, the configurable step being present in both the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps, the hidden configuration of the configurable step not being displayed in a graphical user interface
including displaying a first graphical element indicating the difference in the hidden configuration.
However, Khoyi (US 20170322783 A1) teaches
Code version (Para 0015, Each building block comprises code instantiated from a class to implement certain settings that can be added to an entity. Such settings may be structural, decorative, and/or functional).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined de Seabra’s teaching to Khoyi’s in order to allow for tracking and visualizing changes in customizable low-code updates thereby reducing development time, errors, and the need for coding expertise in enterprise environments (Khoyi [Summary]).
De Seabra and Khoyi did not specifically teach
including detecting a difference in a hidden configuration of a configurable step, the configurable step being present in both the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps, the hidden configuration of the configurable step not being displayed in a graphical user interface
including displaying a first graphical element indicating the difference in the hidden configuration.
However, Shukla teaches:
including detecting a difference in a hidden configuration of a configurable step, the configurable step being present in both the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps, the hidden configuration of the configurable step not being displayed in a graphical user interface (Col. 15, lines 13-43: "A user may ask a running instance for its schedule model and make changes to the model... The model is validated after the updates."; Col. 18, lines 20-34: "As this file is not visible to the user, the file is maintained as a secondary document.") Examiner Comments: Shukla teaches detecting changes via model validation after serialization, where secondary documents like code-beside represent hidden configurations (not visible in GUI) of configurable activities/steps present in both original and modified versions, as changes to hidden files are detected and validated.
including displaying a first graphical element indicating the difference in the hidden configuration (Col. 28, lines 51-61: "When an activity is insufficiently configured, an activity's designer is adorned with an icon resembling an exclamation point smart tags. A developer clicks on the icon to see a dropdown list of the configuration errors specific to that activity.") Examiner Comments: Shukla teaches generating a GUI with smart tags (graphical elements) indicating configuration differences or errors in hidden aspects, as validation results from hidden config changes are visually flagged in the designer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Seabra/Khoyi with Shukla’s to incorporate detection and graphical indication of differences in hidden configurations, motivated by the need to enable runtime editing and validation of workflow models while maintaining hidden logic for encapsulation and error-free execution in extensible low-code frameworks (Shukla, [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 2, de Seabra, Khoyi and Shukla teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the second code version is an updated version of the first code version (de Seabra [(Col 3: ln 62 – Col 4: ln 8, The step of comparing the modified design model includes the sub-steps of retrieving the original design model interface specification, parsing the original design model interface specification to create a first in memory representation of the design model interface specification; retrieving the modified design model interface specification; parsing the modified design model interface specification to create a second in memory representation of the design model interface specification)]).
De Seabra did not specifically teach
and one or more of the first code version and the second code version are displayed in the graphical user interface as a low-code software recipe, the low-code software recipe including an outline of executable software code.
However, Khoyi (US 20170322783 A1) teaches
and one or more of the first code version and the second code version are displayed in the graphical user interface as a low-code software recipe, the low-code software recipe including an outline of executable software code (Para 0038, All of the entities, which represent separate pieces of information in a solution process, together represent a problem domain. To this end, “entity modeling” refers to a way for an application developer, referred to as a solution builder or entity model builder herein, to define these pieces of information, set up relationships (e.g., an applicant may be associated with one or more job openings), specify rules to define constraints (e.g., an applicant must have a minimum of one year work experience), put in processes that define behaviors (e.g., notify a hiring manager when an applicant who is a current employee applies for a different position in the enterprise), add forms (e.g., a recommendation form that a hiring manager has to fill out), define work lists (e.g., queries for searching against entities, for instance, for searching positions based on how long each position has been vacant), and eventually build an application that end users can use for the particular solution process) Examiner comments: Entity model is interpreted to the claimed low-code software recipe.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined de Seabra’s teaching to Khoyi’s in order to allow for tracking and visualizing changes in customizable low-code updates thereby reducing development time, errors, and the need for coding expertise in enterprise environments (Khoyi [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 3, de Seabra, Khoyi and Shukla teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein detecting the at least one change includes: determining, by the processor, a difference in execution of the second code version including a skipped step skipped the second code version and unskipped in the first code version, at least one of the one or more triggers and the one or more actions including the skipped step (de Seabra [Col 4: ln 1-8, comparing the first and the second in memory representations to identify any elements that are deleted in the representation of the modified design model]).
Regarding Claim 4, de Seabra, Khoyi and Shukla teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein: the at least one change includes the skipped step, wherein that the skipped step is skipped is not visible in text of the skipped step in the second code version; and the one or more graphical elements graphically indicates at the skipped step that it is skipped in the second code version (de Seabra [Col 7: ln 26-44, the elements of the first and second lists annotated with specific visual marks that denote non-existing elements, including marks in the first list for elements that are deleted in the second list and marks in the second list for elements that are new in the first list]).
Regarding Claim 10, de Seabra, Khoyi and Shukla teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:the second plurality of executable steps include an added step added over the first plurality of executable steps; and generating the graphical user interface (de Seabra [Col 6: ln 30-56, a visual indication of new elements, changed elements, and deleted elements])
De Seabra did not specifically teach
includes displaying a first flowchart line linking the first plurality of executable steps and a second flowchart line linking the second plurality of executable steps, the first flowchart line being longer than the second flowchart line.
However, Khoyi (US 20170322783 A1) teaches
includes displaying a first flowchart line linking the first plurality of executable steps and a second flowchart line linking the second plurality of executable steps, the first flowchart line being longer than the second flowchart line (Para 0038, To this end, “entity modeling” refers to a way for an application developer, referred to as a solution builder or entity model builder herein, to define these pieces of information, set up relationships (e.g., an applicant may be associated with one or more job openings), specify rules to define constraints; Para 0039, Such entities models can be characterized as visual models and the entities can be utilized (e.g., visually and rapidly via a user-friendly interface) to define various elements of an application) Examiner Comments: The visual entity model is interpreted to the claimed flowchart. Adjusting lengths for added steps is obvious for visual alignment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined de Seabra’s teaching to Khoyi’s in order to allow for tracking and visualizing changes in customizable low-code updates thereby reducing development time, errors, and the need for coding expertise in enterprise environments (Khoyi [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 11, de Seabra, Khoyi and Shukla teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the graphical user interface includes a graphical field summarizing a step of the second plurality of executable steps; and the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change [includes a graphical tag overlaid on the graphical field], the graphical tag indicating a change type selected from a set of change types based on a type of the at least one change (de Seabra [Col 7: ln 26-44, The elements of the first and second lists may be annotated with specific visual marks that denote the element status, as one of new, changed or conflict, and the elements of the first and second lists annotated with specific visual marks that denote non-existing elements, including marks in the first list for elements that are deleted in the second list and marks in the second list for elements that are new in the first list]).
De Seabra did not teach
includes a graphical tag overlaid on the graphical field.
However, Khoyi (US 20170322783 A1) teaches
includes a graphical tag overlaid on the graphical field (Para 0059, In the example of FIG. 3, visual components of the entity composition function include an “Add” button corresponding to the functions of the entity composition function. Such visual components allow a user to quickly and easily add/delete entity building blocks 340 relative to entity 331).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined de Seabra’s teaching to Khoyi’s in order to allow for tracking and visualizing changes in customizable low-code updates thereby reducing development time, errors, and the need for coding expertise in enterprise environments (Khoyi [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 12, de Seabra, Khoyi and Shukla teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein: the at least one change includes a plurality of changes respective to the step; and the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes a plurality of graphical tags overlaid on the graphical field, the plurality of graphical tags indicating a plurality of change types based on associated types of the plurality of changes (de Seabra [Col 7: ln 26-44, The elements of the first and second lists may be annotated with specific visual marks that denote the element status, as one of new, changed or conflict, and the elements of the first and second lists annotated with specific visual marks that denote non-existing elements, including marks in the first list for elements that are deleted in the second list and marks in the second list for elements that are new in the first list]).
Regarding Claim 13, de Seabra, Khoyi and Shukla teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more graphical elements graphically indicating the at least one change includes [a graphical summary] of a plurality of changes between the first plurality of executable steps and the second plurality of executable steps, the plurality of changes including the at least one change, [the graphical summary] of the plurality of changes being displayed higher in the graphical user interface than graphical representations of the second plurality of executable steps (de Seabra [Col 6: ln 30-56, Facilitating the selection of elements of the most recently published version may include presenting a visual comparison of the elements, for example, a visual indication of new elements, changed elements, and deleted elements]);
and the method further comprises: receiving, by the processor, an input selecting the at least one change from [the graphical summary]; and based on the input, automatically scrolling the graphical user interface to a location corresponding to the at least one change selected from [the graphical summary] (de Seabra [Col 7: ln 5-25, facilitating selection of elements in the second model for merging into the first model, presenting an indication of the action to be taken for each selected element, and taking the indicated action, thereby merging the first version with the second version]).
De Seabra did not specifically teach
a graphical summary.
However, Khoyi (US 20170322783 A1) teaches
a graphical summary (Para 0058, entity model designer tool 110 may generate a visualization (referred to hereinafter as a view) (215) containing a name of the entity and visual components of entity composition function 160 and display the view on graphical user interface 150 (220)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined de Seabra’s teaching to Khoyi’s in order to allow for tracking and visualizing changes in customizable low-code updates thereby reducing development time, errors, and the need for coding expertise in enterprise environments (Khoyi [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 14, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 2) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 3) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 17, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 4) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the previous cited sections of the references used in the previous office action. The current office action is now citing additional references to address the newly added claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMIR SOLTANZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-3451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/AMIR SOLTANZADEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191