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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 7/8/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 9, 11 and 17 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome claim objections set forth in the non-Final Office Action mailed 3/24/2026.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification submitted by 7/8/2026 is entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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, 7, 9-11, 15, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann et al. (US 20210191983 A1, hereafter Teichmann) in view of Takahasi (US20140222905A1), Yu et al. (US 20210129325 A1, hereafter Yu) and Rabyi (NPL from cubis.be, title: SAP Analytics Cloud: Open your story with a variable constraint via a URL, publication date: 2/17/2022).
Regarding to claim 1, Teichmann discloses: A method comprising:
receiving, from a user, information comprising a plurality of story information; in response to receiving the information from the user, remotely performing, without further user interaction, a plurality of steps comprising: (i) accessing, by a software bot, a front end of a software system, the front end configured to present visual representations of data to a user; (ii) accessing, by the software bot, a backend of the software system, the backend storing data and metadata (see [0044]; “a user (e.g., an agent/employee of a customer) of an application manually requests analytics content. For example, the user can open a content library using a UI of the application and can select one or more content packages. In response, a request is submitted to the ACN 302 through the API(s) 308 to import the analytics content and use the analytics content within the application”. Also see [0061]; “The features can be implemented in a computer system that includes a back-end component, such as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, such as an application server or an Internet server, or that includes a front-end component, such as a client computer having a graphical user interface or an Internet browser, or any combination of them”. The usage of the UI of the application discussed at [0044] according to [0061] is implemented with a computer software system having front end component having GUI that present visual representations of data to user and back-end component storing data and metadata discussed at [0061] used by the UI of the application. Noe: although [0044] exactly describes that “user can open content library” and “select one or more content packages”, it is understood that the actions like reading content packages and loading content packages are performed by the UI of the application to control the UI without further user interaction (the user only selects content package without manually requesting to read or load the content package). In addition, the usage of API 308 to import and use the content within the application discussed at [0044] can also be used as support for claimed “without further user interaction”. Also see “the restricted analytics content can be automatically sent in response to an update of the restricted analytics content” from [0039], “Automated provisioning of the analytics content enables time- and resource-efficient distribution of the analytics content, particularly in the case of 10s, 100s, or 1000s of tenant” from [0042] for claimed “automatically invoke a plurality of user interface (UI) actions to control a UI without user interaction”);
(iii) sending, by the software bot, data and metadata for one or more stories from the backend to the front end; (iv) loading, by the software bot, the one or more stories on the front end configured with the data and metadata from the backend (see [0044] and [0048]; “a user (e.g., an agent/employee of a customer) of an application manually requests analytics content. For example, the user can open a content library using a UI of the application and can select one or more content packages. In response, a request is submitted to the ACN 302 through the API(s) 308 to import the analytics content and use the analytics content within the application”, “the APIs 308 include an export API and an import API that can be called … which respectively enable for export/import of content packages … During an export API call, identifiers assigned to respective content (e.g., stories, models) present in the current tenant (source tenant) are set to be exported. All of the content specified, and any dependencies, are exported to the ACN as a new package in a background job. During an import call, the content present inside an ACN package is imported into the target tenant”. Also see [0034]; “Example analytic content can include, without limitation, stories”. Furthermore, see [0061] and explanations related to how [0044] and [0061] teach claimed front-end and claimed back-end);
(v) performing, by the software bot, a migration or conversion of each of the one or more stories from a source to a target (see [0044] and [0048]; “the APIs 308 include an export API and an import API that can be called … which respectively enable for export/import of content packages … During an export API call, identifiers assigned to respective content (e.g., stories, models) present in the current tenant (source tenant) are set to be exported. All of the content specified, and any dependencies, are exported to the ACN as a new package in a background job. During an import call, the content present inside an ACN package is imported into the target tenant”. Also see [0035]; “Example use cases for analytics content can include template content, demo content … demo content can be described as a lighter variant of template content, which typically comes with demo data (e.g., demo enterprise data) in the content package. In this manner, the analytics content can be demoed within the analytics system tenant immediately using the demo data, but is not usable in a production scenario. In this manner, a user can test the analytics content before importing a production-usable version of the analytics content”).
Note: according to Applicant’s specification, such as “convert software stacks, such as an SAP Analytics cloud story, from older version to newer versions. Additionally, it may be necessary to import and export content from test tenant to production tenant” (emphasis added) from [0003] and “In some embodiments, bots may be used to migrate enterprise software content between systems, such as importing or exporting software stacks as described herein” (emphasis added) from [0013], it is reasonable to consider or interpret the stories import and export processes discussed at Teichmann as claimed “migration or conversion” to be performed on claimed stories.
Teichmann does not disclose:
the information received from the user is a table comprising a plurality of story URLs, story names, and one or more result fields;
(vi) writing, by the software bot, a result for the migration or conversion of each of the one or more stories to a corresponding result field of the table, the result comprising at least one of an indication of a successful or erroneous migration or conversion.
However, Takahasi discloses: A method comprising:
receiving, from a user, a table comprising a plurality of file object location, file object names; in response to receiving the table from the user, remotely performing, without further user interaction, a plurality of steps comprising: performing, by the software bot, a migration or conversion of each of the one or more file objects from a source to a target (see Figs. 2, 5, 7, 10, [0025]-[0027], [0036]-[0037] and [0043]-[0045]; “For example, if the file name 211 b is “x1.dat”, the transfer correspondence table 211 stores therein the path of file transfer source 211 a as “c:aa\bb\” and the path of file transfer destination 211 c as “c:\pp\qq\””, “ the control device 2 automatically transmits the file in the area indicated by the path in the client terminal 4 to the path in the virtual desktop environment according to the transfer correspondence table 211 in which the path in the client terminal 4 is associated with the path in the virtual desktop environment”, “the client terminal 4 to select the file to be transferred and to add the associated information of the selected file to the transfer correspondence table 211”, “The selection s11 is a column for checking whether to select the file in the transfer source s12 and the directory of transfer destination s13 associated with each other as a subject for transfer”, “The add button s16 is a button used for adding transfer information to the transfer correspondence table 211”. User uses the transfer files list screen s1 to generate the transfer correspondence table 211 having information including file object source path locations and file object names via selection button and add button and then such transfer correspondence table 211 received by the transfer unit 222 of the control device 2 to automatically perform file object migration process according to the received transfer correspondence table 211 without further user interaction. Also see [0095]-[0097] for the transfer function performed by transfer unit 222 is implemented via transfer control program, i.e., claimed software bot).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the processes of selecting which particular SAP software story object files to be migrated from Teichmann by including adding selected file objects information to a table to allow software bot automatically migrate the file objects from the source location to target location according to the table from Takahasi, since it would provide a mechanism to improve transfer efficiency (see [0088] from Takahasi; “This enables the control device 2A to readily upload only the file used in the application at that time out of the files in the associated information stored in the transfer correspondence table 211, thereby improving transfer efficiency”).
In addition, Yu discloses: receiving, from a user, a table comprising a plurality of task information and one or more result fields; in response to receiving the table from the suer, remotely performing, without further user interaction, a plurality of steps comprising: perform, by the software bot, tasks; and writing, by the software bot, a result for the task to a corresponding result field of the table, the result comprising at least one of an indication of a successful or erroneous task (see Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, [0004], [0015], [0024], [0027]; “permit user 101 to simply, with one-click, run directly from the spreadsheet, a software robot, such as a bot 134 (described below) to perform a task on data in a spreadsheet and to receive the results, either in the spreadsheet file from which the task was performed … Data in the spreadsheet is passed by the plugin 108 to the selected bot 134 and results are received by the plugin 108 from the bot 134”, “call a bot 134 from a spreadsheet program and pass data into the spreadsheet program, under the attended running environment” and “The following information is preferably available: (i) the result ID, (ii) the result status, for example: Running, Failed, Completed”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the table includes file object information for performing migration tasks automatically from the combination of Teichmann and Takahasi by including the table includes task information and result section of the tasks for performing tasks automatically from Yu, since it would provide additional information section on table to allow user to review certain detail information on the task results (see [0004] and [0027] from Yu; “Results of the automation task are received from the control room server and are provided to the plugin program, which provides the results of the automation task to the user within a productivity file accessible by the user”).
In addition, Rabyi discloses: a path location for a story file object indicated by story URL (see pages 1-2; “create a story URL with additional parameters”, “The URL syntax to open a story with a variable (prompt) is the following: … https://cubis.eu10.hanacloudservices.cloud.sap/sap/fpa/ui/tenants/FB6D9/bo/story/443ABAF17CD00F1DC5193DA2BB3955B3?V01Model=C5L89I598UWNTH78IEB3GM2RY8&v01Par= ZCUSTOMER&v01Val=1008677”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the path locations of stories to be migrated recorded on the transfer correspondence table from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi and Yu by including path location of a story file object indicated by URL associated with the story file object from Rabyi, and thus the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi would disclose the missing limitations from Teichmann, since it would provide a mechanism of not only providing cloud or network path location to share the created stories but also defining certain constraints for accessing the stories (see first three paragraphs of page 1 from Rabyi; “This story URL can be useful for companies who need to embed stories in external applications. And adding a variable parameter (like a prompt) in the URL allows to custom the link for each user or group of users (e.g. User1 needs to analyze the story only for customer A and User2 needs to see only customer B)”).
Regarding to Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi discloses: wherein the software bot generates queries for each of the one or more stories in a batch to retrieve corresponding data and metadata (see [0048] from Teichmann; “an export API and an import API that can be called based on uniform resource locators (URLs) of respective analytics system tenants (e.g., https://<AS_tenant URL>/api/v1/content/jobs) and which respectively enable for export/import of content packages” and “the export API accepts a list of content items as input and can collect any dependent data objects to create a content package … During an export API call, identifiers assigned to respective content (e.g., stories, models) present in the current tenant (source tenant) are set to be exported. All of the content specified, and any dependencies, are exported to the ACN as a new package in a background job. During an import call, the content present inside an ACN package is imported into the target tenant”. The export and import API as claimed generated queries to retrieve corresponding data and metadata for the stories to be migrated/converted).
Regarding to Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi discloses: wherein the source comprises a first predefined story version and the target is a second predefined story version (see [0035] from Teichmann; “Example use cases for analytics content can include template content, demo content … demo content can be described as a lighter variant of template content, which typically comes with demo data (e.g., demo enterprise data) in the content package. In this manner, the analytics content can be demoed within the analytics system tenant immediately using the demo data, but is not usable in a production scenario. In this manner, a user can test the analytics content before importing a production-usable version of the analytics content”).
Regarding to Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi discloses: wherein the source comprises a test system and the target is a production system (see [0035] from Teichmann; “Example use cases for analytics content can include template content, demo content … demo content can be described as a lighter variant of template content, which typically comes with demo data (e.g., demo enterprise data) in the content package. In this manner, the analytics content can be demoed within the analytics system tenant immediately using the demo data, but is not usable in a production scenario. In this manner, a user can test the analytics content before importing a production-usable version of the analytics content”).
Regarding to Claim 11, Claim 11 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above (note: also see [0007]-[0008] and claim 8 from Teichmann for the claimed limitations of “a system comprising: at least one processor … to perform a method”).
Regarding to Claim 15, Claim 15 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding to Claim 17, Claim 17 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above (note: also see [0007]-[0008] and claim 8 from Teichmann for the claimed limitations of “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media … to perform a method”).
Regarding to Claim 21, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi discloses: wherein performing the migration or conversion of each of the one or more stories comprises using the data and metadata received from the backend to migrate or convert the respective story on the front end (see [0044], [0048] and [0061] from Teichmann; “In response, a request is submitted to the ACN 302 through the API(s) 308 to import the analytics content and use the analytics content within the application”, “the APIs 308 include an export API and an import API that can be called … which respectively enable for export/import of content packages … During an export API call, identifiers assigned to respective content (e.g., stories, models) present in the current tenant (source tenant) are set to be exported. All of the content specified, and any dependencies, are exported to the ACN as a new package in a background job. During an import call, the content present inside an ACN package is imported into the target tenant” and “The features can be implemented in a computer system that includes a back-end component, such as a data server”. The export or import, i.e., claimed migrate or convert, is performing via exporting or importing certain data and metadata received from data server discussed at [0061], i.e., claimed backend).
Claims 3-5, 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann et al. (US 20210191983 A1, hereafter Teichmann) in view of Takahasi (US20140222905A1), Yu et al. (US 20210129325 A1, hereafter Yu) and Rabyi (NPL from cubis.be, title: SAP Analytics Cloud: Open your story with a variable constraint via a URL, publication date: 2/17/2022) and further in view of Narula et al. (US 20190370024 A1, Narula) and Alexander (US 20140344395 A1).
Regarding to Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi does not disclose: wherein each of the one or more stories comprises a plurality of widgets, the method further comprising determining if each widget is compatible with the target.
However, Narula discloses: wherein each of the one or more stories comprises a plurality of widgets (see [0002] and [0023]-[0024]; “uses the concept of “stories” that contain widgets”, “A story can be a collection of data models (e.g., bar charts, graphs, tables, and other visual elements) used for analysis, planning, and reporting in an enterprise” and “The charts, graphs, tables, etc. can be viewed using widgets”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the generic SAP stories from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi by including a SAP story containing widgets and some other data models from Narula, since SAP story is known concept to “contain widgets to provide data visualization using charts, graphs, tables, and other visual elements to convey a story of the user's enterprise and help discover insights in the data” (see [0002] from Narula).
In addition, Alexander discloses: a method of migration comprising: determining if each level of an application stack is compatible with the target (see [0021]; “application migration may involve dealing with potentially incompatible cloud application programming interfaces as well as addressing issues at each level of an application stack”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the SAP stories migration process from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi and Narula by including processes of determining compatibility of each level of an application stack at the source to the target from Alexander, and thus the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula and Alexander would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi (note: Narula or Alexander alone or in combination would not disclose feature of determining if each widget is compatible with the target. It is the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula and Alexander as a whole to teach the particular limitation. Such as, after combining the teachings from Narula, the generic SAP stories to be migrated becomes migrating SAP stories having widgets; after combining the teaches from Alexander, the process of determining compatibility of each level of an application stack at the source to the target from Alexander would become determining each widget of the SAP stories is compatible with the target or not), since it would provide a mechanism of reducing “the burden of performing the actual migration from a source cloud to a target cloud without reducing downtime and degradation of the migrating application” (see [0021] from Alexander).
Regarding to Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated and further the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula and Alexander discloses: wherein the widgets comprise one or more filters (see [0020] from Narula; “allows the user to select a widget, and interact with the selected widget, including applying filters. Embodiments in accordance with the present disclosure include a context framework that manages the application of filters to widgets. When a filter is applied, widget snapshot images used to display corresponding widgets in a collection view can be updated to reflect state changes of affected corresponding widgets”) and one or more data visualizations (see [0023]-[0024] from Narula; “The charts, graphs, tables, etc. can be viewed using widgets”).
Regarding to Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated and further the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula and Alexander discloses: wherein determining if each widget is compatible with the target comprises determining if a filter associated with a particular widget is compatible with the target (see [0020] from Narula and [0021] from Alexander; “allows the user to select a widget, and interact with the selected widget, including applying filters. Embodiments in accordance with the present disclosure include a context framework that manages the application of filters to widgets. When a filter is applied, widget snapshot images used to display corresponding widgets in a collection view can be updated to reflect state changes of affected corresponding widgets” and “application migration may involve dealing with potentially incompatible cloud application programming interfaces as well as addressing issues at each level of an application stack”. At the combination system, Filters are one of the levels/contents of the SAP stories to be migrated, and thus there is a process of determining whether a filter associated with a particular widget is compatible with the target or not).
Regarding to Claim 12, Claim 12 is a system claim corresponds to method Claims 3 and 4 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejections of Claims 3 and 4 above.
Regarding to Claim 13, Claim 13 rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding to Claim 18, Claim 18 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding to Claim 19, Claim 19 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann et al. (US 20210191983 A1, hereafter Teichmann) in view of Takahasi (US20140222905A1), Yu et al. (US 20210129325 A1, hereafter Yu), Rabyi (NPL from cubis.be, title: SAP Analytics Cloud: Open your story with a variable constraint via a URL, publication date: 2/17/2022), Narula et al. (US 20190370024 A1, Narula) and Alexander (US 20140344395 A1) and in further in view of Ghatty et al. (US 20130166511 A1, hereafter Ghatty) and Devanathan et al. (US 20060179431 A1, hereafter Devanathan),
Regarding to Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated, the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula and Alexander does not disclose: wherein, when a particular widget for a particular story is not compatible with the target, the method further comprising:
generating an error message information about incompatibility;
generating, by the software bot, an image of the error message information; and
storing, by the software bot, the image in a results column of the table.
However, Ghatty discloses: when a particular object is not compatible with the target; the method further comprising: generating an error message information about the incompatibility; generating, by the software bot, an image of the error message (see [0052] and [0057]; “to perform introspection to determine the fourth assessment value based on the compatibility of the computational resources of the source client computer 2 and target computer system 10” and “displays (at block 238) the assessment value and if status is fail or warning, then the backup assessor 30 may further display information on the reasons for the warning or fail status, e.g., files missing, driver incompatibility, etc”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the incompatibility determination process from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula and Alexander by including displaying error message for the determined incompatibility from Ghatty, since it would provide a mechanism to allow users are able to use additional information to determine further operations (see [0057] from Ghatty).
In addition, Devanathan discloses: storing, by the software bot, the image in a results column of the table (see [0141]; “When the database Compatibility details choice 1114 is made in pane 1100 of FIG. 11, the user can perform database compatibility analysis. FIG. 15 provides additional information necessary to analyze database compatibility … Column 1512 provides an indication whether the items on the source and the target are compatible ("1"), incompatible ("0"), or whether that cannot be determined ("???")”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the displaying incompatibility error information from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula, Alexander, and Ghatty by including displaying incompatibility indication at entry of a table from Devanathan, and thus the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula, Alexander, Ghatty and Devanathan would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu, Rabyi, Narula and Alexander, since it would provide a visual representation of the result status recorded on the table for user’s review.
Regarding to Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding to Claim 20, Claim 20 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann et al. (US 20210191983 A1, hereafter Teichmann) in view of Takahasi (US20140222905A1), Yu et al. (US 20210129325 A1, hereafter Yu) and Rabyi (NPL from cubis.be, title: SAP Analytics Cloud: Open your story with a variable constraint via a URL, publication date: 2/17/2022) and in further view of Narula et al. (US 20190370024 A1, Narula).
Regarding to Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi does not disclose: wherein the one or more stories comprise data structures, data models, data objects, and rendering libraries.
However, Narula discloses: wherein the one or more stories comprise data structures, data models, data objects, and rendering libraries (see [0023]; “A story can be a collection of data models (e.g., bar charts, graphs, tables, and other visual elements) used for analysis, planning, and reporting in an enterprise”. At least the tables can be considered as claimed data structure, bar charts can be considered as claimed data models, and graphs can be considered as claimed data objects. Also see [0020] from Narula; “allows the user to select a widget, and interact with the selected widget, including applying filters. Embodiments in accordance with the present disclosure include a context framework that manages the application of filters to widgets. When a filter is applied, widget snapshot images used to display corresponding widgets in a collection view can be updated to reflect state changes of affected corresponding widgets”. Filters can be considered as claimed rendering libraries).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the generic SAP stories from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi by including a SAP story containing widgets and some other data models from Narula, and thus the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi and Narula would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Teichmann, Takahasi, Yu and Rabyi, since SAP story is known concept to “contain widgets to provide data visualization using charts, graphs, tables, and other visual elements to convey a story of the user's enterprise and help discover insights in the data” (see [0002] from Narula).
Regarding to Claim 16, Claim 16 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/8/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1 and 3-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been full considered. New grounds of rejections are made based on the amended limitations from each of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Y Blair can be reached on 571-270-1014. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to 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.
/Zhi Chen/
Patent Examiner, AU2196
Prosecution Insights