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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended.
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a first predefined stack version” at line 1 and “a second predefined stack version” at line 2 should be: a first predefined story version and a second predefined story version respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann et al. (US 20210191983 A1, hereafter Teichmann) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190188036 A1, hereafter Yamamoto).
Teichmann and Yamamoto were cited at the PTO-892 forms of the previous office actions.
Regarding to claim 1, Teichmann discloses: A method comprising:
(i) accessing, by a software bot configured to automatically invoke a plurality of user interface (UI) actions to control a UI without user interaction, 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] can be implemented in 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 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 considered as claimed “automatically invoke a plurality of user interface (UI) actions to control a UI without 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 the stories import and export processes discussed at Teichmann as claimed “migration or conversion” of claimed stories.
Teichmann does not disclose:
(vi) writing, by the software bot, a result for the migration or conversion of each of the one or more stories to a table, the result comprising at least one of an indication of a successful or erroneous migration or conversion.
However, Yamamoto discloses: A method of comprising:
(v) performing, by the software bot, a migration or conversion of each of the one or more software objects from a source to a target (see Fig. 8, [0061]-[0063]. Also see [0039]; “a first computer 100 as a migration source of programs and a second computer 200 as a migration destination of those programs”. Also see [0083], [0146]-[0147]; “The job execution control unit 131 advances the processing to step S106 upon determining that there is a migratable program … the job execution control unit 131 updates the migration phase corresponding to the migratable program of the migration program management table 15”); and (vi) writing, by the software bot, a result for the migration or conversion of each of the one or more software objects to a table, the result comprising at least one of an indication of a successful or erroneous migration or conversion (see Fig. 8, [0061]-[0063]; “The migrated flag stores information indicating whether the normal operation of the ported program in the second computer 200 has been confirmed and the migration of the program has been completed” and “The migration failure code stores information pertaining to the failure in the migration of the program”. Also see [0139]-[0140], [0143]).
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 migrating the SAP software stories content from Teichmann by including a table indicating software object migration result from Yamamoto, and thus the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto would disclose the missing limitations from Teichmann, since a table is a well-known and understood organized data structure to store corresponding information in correlate locations to allow viewers easily figure out correlated entries.
Regarding to Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto 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 and Yamamoto discloses: wherein the source comprises a first predefined stack version and the target is a second predefined stack 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 and Yamamoto 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”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann et al. (US 20210191983 A1, hereafter Teichmann) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190188036 A1, hereafter Yamamoto) and further in view of Kalley et al. (US 20200371830 A1, hereafter Kalley).
Teichmann, Yamamoto and Kalley were cited at the PTO-892 forms of the previous office actions.
Regarding to Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto does not disclose: wherein the software bot iteratively performs steps (i) to (vi) separately for each of one or more stories.
However, Kalley discloses: wherein the software bot iteratively performs migration or conversion steps separately for each of one or more software objects to be migrated or converted (see [0105]-[0111]; “the relocation controller (API) iteratively finds … the relocation controller (API) iteratively performs verifications … the relocation controller (API) iteratively relocates all instances from the source compute nodes under maintenance to the target compute nodes … the relocation controller (API) iteratively verifies that the instances (VMs) are running on the target compute nodes”).
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 from the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto by including iteratively migrating multiple software objects from Kalley, and thus the combination of Teichmann, Yamamoto and Kalley would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto, since it provides the ability of migrating a group of software objects (see [0105]-[0111] from Kalley).
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 Yamamoto et al. (US 20190188036 A1, hereafter Yamamoto) and further in view of Narula et al. (US 20190370024 A1, Narula) and Alexander (US 20140344395 A1).
Teichmann, Yamamoto, Narula and Alexander were cited at the PTO-892 forms of the previous office actions.
Regarding to Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto 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 and Yamamoto 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, Yamamoto 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, Yamamoto, Narula and Alexander would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto (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, Yamamoto, 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, Yamamoto, 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, Yamamoto, 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 Yamamoto et al. (US 20190188036 A1, hereafter Yamamoto), 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),
Teichmann, Yamamoto, Narula, Alexander, Ghatty and Devanathan were cited at the PTO-892 forms of the previous office actions.
Regarding to Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated, the combination of Teichmann, Yamamoto, 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, Yamamoto, 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, Yamamoto, Narula, Alexander and Ghatty by including displaying incompatibility indication at entry of a table from Devanathan, and thus the combination of Teichmann, Yamamoto, Narula, Alexander, Ghatty and Devanathan would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Teichmann, Yamamoto, Narula and Alexander, since a table is a well-known and understood organized data structure to store corresponding information in correlate locations to allow viewers easily figure out correlated entries.
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 Yamamoto et al. (US 20190188036 A1, hereafter Yamamoto) and in further view of Narula et al. (US 20190370024 A1, Narula).
Teichmann, Yamamoto and Narula were cited at the PTO-892 forms of the previous office actions.
Regarding to Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto 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 and Yamamoto 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).
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 3/11/2026, with respect to claim objection of claim 9 have been full considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments at page 6 are summarized as the following:
“The Office Action indicates that the claim should recite ‘a first predefined story version’ and ‘a second predefined story version.’ OA at 3. However, the language presently recited in claim 9 is fully supported by the specification and clearly defines the claimed subject matter. See, e.g., para. [0015] and [0048]” (see 4th paragraph of page 6 from the Remarks).
The examiner respectively disagrees.
Although [0015] and [0048] from the specification can be used support for the language of “a first predefined stack version” and “a second predefined stack version” at current claim 9, claim 1 (i.e., the parent claim of claim 9) now does not recite a generic software stack. Claim 1 now recites a specific type of software stack, i.e., story, and thus it is more proper to use story version instead of stack version at current claim 9.
Therefore, Claim 9 is objected.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/11/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been full considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments at pages 6-11 are summarized as the following:
For the independent claims, “in rejecting the claims, the Office Action ignores whether the steps are performed by a software bot or otherwise, including citing steps performed by a user. See, e.g., OA at 4 (‘a user …. can open a content library using a UI of the application and select one or more content packages …’) … the Office Action essentially reads the ‘software bot’ out of the claim, out of the claim, thereby rendering the term meaning less for the purpose of the rejection” (see 1st paragraph of page 8 from the Remarks).
“the rejection relies on inferences drawn from the current application, rather than on the teachings and suggestions of the prior art or the understanding of those skilled in the art prior to the time of filing” (see last 2nd paragraph of page 9 from the Remarks). “As one example, the OA, at 4, merely concludes ‘The usage of the UI of the application discussed at [0044] can be implemented in 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.” (emphasis added). As another example, the Office Action, Id., at 5-6, merely concludes, based on the Applicant’s own specification rather than the prior art, ‘it is reasonable to consider the storage import and export processes discussed at Teichmann as claimed ‘migration or conversion’ of claimed stories.” (citing the current spec., para. [0013] of the detailed description) (emphasis added). In yet another example, the Office Action, Id., at 7, merely concludes, “the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto would disclose the missing limitations from Teichmann, since a table is a well-known and understood organized data structure to store corresponding information in correlate locations to allow viewers easily figure out correlated entries.” (emphasis added)” (see last paragraph of page 9 and 1st paragraph of page 10 from the Remarks).
The examiner respectively disagrees.
First of all, Applicant is suggested to review the claimed limitations and descriptions from Teichmann carefully. Such as, what exact described by Teichmann is “the user can open a content library … can select one or more content packages”. Either one of opening a content library and selecting content packages is not claimed accessing, sending, loading, performing, writing performed by claimed “software bot”. In addition to the description of a user, the description from Teichmann also recites “a UI of the application”. To one with ordinary skill in the art, it is understood that after “the user can open a content library using a UI of the application and can select one or more content packages”, the application (i.e., claimed software bot) would actually perform actions of accessing corresponding memory locations and loading the content packages in order to achieve the later feature of “import the analytics content and use the analytics content within the application”. Note: it is understood that the user/human is not able to access and load the digital data stored at the computer memory/storage locations.
For the 1st example, Examiner did not see any of statement or explanation of this example is “inferences drawn from the current application”. Actually, this particular example is the teachings and suggestions of the prior art and the understandings of those skilled in the art prior to the time of filing. Such as, [0044] from reference Teichmann does teach “UI of an application”, UI is understood as user interface (see “a user interface (UI) provided by an application” from [0021] of Teichmann). [0061] from Teichmann also exactly teaches that the features from Teichmann “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” (emphasis added by Examiner). The statement or explanation related to the first example is based on teachings from [0044] and [0061] from Teichmann. It is not clear that how Applicant concluded that such example is related to “inferences drawn from the current application”.
For the 2nd example, citing [0013] of Applicant’s specification and the statement/explanation of “it is reasonable to consider the story import and export processes discussed at Teichmann as claimed migration or conversion of claimed stories” are related to claim interpretation instead of obvious in light of the prior art or 35 U.S.C § 103 as Applicant argued. Such as, the descriptions from reference Teichmann are related to feature of importing and/or exporting stories. The plain meaning of importing or exporting a digital object at the computing fields in generally is different from migrating or converting a digital object. However, based on Applicant’s specification (particularly [0003] and [0013]), Applicant interprets the import or export operation for a story as migration or conversion operation for a story. Thereby, citing [0013] from Applicant’s specification is used as evidence to show and explain Examiner follows Applicant’s interpretation on the language used at the claimed invention.
For the 3rd example, Applicant is reminded that before the language of “the combination of Teichmann and Yamamoto would disclose the missing limitations from Teichmann”, the Office Action also stated that “to modify the processes of migrating the SAP software stories content from Teichmann by including a table indicating software object migration result from Yamamoto”. Such statement is the proposed modification of the applied references necessary to arrive at the claimed subject matter. It is not clear that how Applicant concluded that “the Office Action, Id., at 7, merely concludes” (emphasis added by Examiner) in view of such proposed modification of the applied references.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Silk et al. (US 10339150 B1) discloses: a user interface may automatically generate a query without requiring user input and automatically output definition from term data to user (see lines 65-68 of col. 4) and such user interface also can be interacted with user (see lines 62-2 of cols. 7-8).
Petersen et al. (US 10660039 B1) discloses: UI module may automatically provide an indication of the chat message for display by UIC without waiting to receive a user input indicating that the user would like to view or hear the chat message and such UI module receive an indication of user input (see lines 19-26 of col. 6).
Vendrow (US 20130086153 A1) discloses: The user may interact with the message UI by selecting the various message functions and then select to close the message UI (see [0090]) and the message UI automatically sends the request for all current messages of the user without human initiation, interaction, or intervention (see [0113]).
Husic (US 20090282062 A1) discloses: the graphical user interface may be configured so that the user can select an object and associate the selected piece of data with the object using the graphical user interface (see [0155]) and these RDBMS tables are automatically created and managed via a graphical user interface (GUI), without any manual input by the user (see [0381]).
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
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196