DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application was filed 28 June 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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 their entirety 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.
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.
Drawings
The drawings filed 28 June 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “…monitoring, by the TOS monitor…” in claim 1;
The “…collecting, via the collector…” in claim 1;
The “…detecting, by the detector…” in claim 1;
The “…describing, by the descriptor …” in claim 1;
The “…mapping, via the mapper …” in claim 1;
The “…generating, via the generator…” in claim 1;
The “…verifying, via the TOS verifier …” in claim 1;
The “…updating, via the synchronizer …” in claim 1;
The “…rendering, via the renderer…” in claim 1;
The “…screenshotting, via the TOS monitor…” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
LACK OF CORRESPONDING STRUCTURE FOR MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION LIMITIATONS
As to claims 1, limitations of these claims noted above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as noted. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions of each limitation and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. For computer-implemented means plus function limitations, note that the disclosed structure must include an algorithm for performing the function claimed. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). And the specification provides no algorithm sufficient for performing any of the claimed functions here. It does little more than repeat the language of the claims. See, e.g., pars. [0063-0064] of the specification.
Since the specification lacks sufficient corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite and an equivalent is any element that performs the specified function. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2181(II)(B) and 2185.
As to claims 2-7, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim and are rejected for the same reasons.
Further as to claim 5, the means-plus-function limitation of this claim lacks sufficient corresponding structure in the specification and is additionally rejected for this reason as well, for reasons substantially the same as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
OTHER INDEFINITENESS
As to claim 1, the claim refers to differences between “the” information and the changed information at lines 10-11 of the claim and the claim previously refers to both changed information and information relative to the developing activities. It is unclear to which information “the” information is referring because of these multiple references to information and because if “the” information were construed as referring to the information relative to the developing activities, it is not clear how there would be differences “between” that information and the changed information because the changed information is recites as being “within” the information relative to the developing activities. For the purposes of examination, “the” information will be construed as referring to any information, not necessarily limited to the “information relative to the developing activities.” (See, e.g., par. [0083] of the specification).
As to claims 2-7, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 8, the claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 9-13, the claims are dependent on claim 8 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 14, the claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 15-20, the claims are dependent on claim 14 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1-7, the claims include means-plus function limitations lacking sufficient corresponding structure as noted above. Such limitations also lack written description. See M.P.E.P. § 2163.03(VI).
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 without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites:
[a] method for optimizing and synchronizing a tutorial using a TOS (Tutorial Optimization and Synchronization) identifier including a descriptor, a mapper, a generator, and a renderer; a TOS verifier including a synchronizer; and a TOS monitor including a collector and a detector; the method comprising:
monitoring, by the TOS monitor, developing activities in development environments and tools relative to the tutorial;
collecting, via the collector, information relative to the developing activities;
detecting, by the detector, changed information within the information relative to the developing activities;
identifying, by the TOS identifier, one or more specific differences between the information and the changed information, wherein each of the one or more specific differences are configured to be addressed as an updated feature in a tutorial document;
describing, by the descriptor, each of the one or more specific differences;
mapping, via the mapper, descriptions of each of the one or more specific differences to each of the updated features;
generating, via the generator, one or more updated tutorial sections, wherein each of the one or more updated tutorial sections includes a respective one of the descriptions of the one or more specific differences and a respective one of the one or more updated features;
verifying, via the TOS verifier, the one or more updated tutorial sections;
updating, via the synchronizer, the tutorial document with each of the mapped descriptions of the one or more specific differences and each of the one or more updated features; and
rendering, via the renderer, an updated tutorial document to present differentiated aspects of portions of the tutorial and the updated tutorial.
Although a process is claimed (Step 1), under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the above underlined elements recite a mental process because they describe a steps that are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 1).
None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong 2).
Reference to method steps as being performed by a TOS “identifier”, “mapper”, “generator, “renderer, verifier, synchronizer, monitor, collector” and “detector” are mere instructions to apply the mental process because they only amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
Reference to rendering the updated tutorial document is at best insignificant extra-solution activity because it is only a nominal or tangential limitation to the claims. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination yields the same conclusion as that reached when looking at the elements individually. Their collective function is merely to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer in combination with insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to a practical application. (Step 2B). Note that reevaluation of the extra-solution activity per step 2B does not indicate that this element is anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, at least as evidenced by the numerous references to displaying data found in nearly every piece of patent literature of record. Looking at the additional elements in combination again yields the same conclusion as that reached when looking at the elements individually.
As to claim 2, the features of this claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more at least because performing the method as code executable by a bot only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claim 3-4, and 6, the features of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more at least because they only further describe the abstract idea itself.
As to claim 5, the features of this claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more at least because taking a screenshot is mere extra-solution data gathering and is well-understood routine and conventional at least as evidenced by of US 7,490,298 at col. 1 ll. 29-31.
As to claim 7, the features of this claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more at least because saving data in a data structure only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). To the extent saving the data is construed as an additional element, it only appears to be a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity. And courts have recognized that electronic recordkeeping and storing information in memory is well-understood, routine and conventional.
As to claim 8, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 and does not include additional elements that integrate abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons. The addition of a computer readable storage medium having program instruction embodied therewith executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform the method only amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claims 9-13, the features of this claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for reasons substantially the same as those set forth above with respect to claims 2-6.
As to claim 14, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 and does not include additional elements that integrate abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons. The addition of a processor, network module coupled to the processor to enable communication over a network, a computer-readable storage device coupled to the processor, TOS manager module coupled to network module, graphical user interface coupled to the processor, TOS identifier, verifier and monitor coupled to the processor and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage device for execution by the processor via a memory to configure the computing device to perform the method only amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claims 15-20, the features of this claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for reasons substantially the same as those set forth above with respect to claims 2-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parhi et al. (US 2024/0362017) (art made of record – hereinafter Parhi) in view of Bodnick et al. (US 2019/0286462) (art made of record – hereinafter Bodnick) and Phelan et al. (US 2015/0007137) (art made of record – hereinafter Phelan).
As to claim 1, Parhi discloses a method for optimizing and synchronizing a tutorial using a TOS (Tutorial Optimization and Synchronization) identifier including a descriptor, a mapper, a generator, and a synchronizer; and a TOS monitor including a collector and a detector; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0114]: components of a processing system as disclosed herein can be implemented in the form of one or more software programs stored in memory and executed by a processor of a processing device [the software instructions perform the functions below being the descriptor, mapper, generator, synchronizer, monitor, collector and detector]) the method comprising:
monitoring, by the TOS monitor, developing activities in development environments and tools relative to the tutorial; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0036]: programmers commit code changes to one or more code repositories 105 using, for example, a software development platform like Gitlab; Fig. 9 and associated text, par. [0038]: embodiments provide a platform that triggers collection of and code changes in response to code commits on a software development platform (e.g., Gitlab). Design documentation is update to include code change descriptions [and see the documentation in the figure, the documentation is a tutorial because it is educational material and describes how to use the code])
collecting, via the collector, information relative to the developing activities; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0042]: to pull the code changes as plain text)
detecting, by the detector, changed information within the information relative to the developing activities; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0042]: to pull the code changes as plain text and feed the changes into the data formatting engine. The data formatting engine is configured to remove redundant information and maintain actual code differences)
identifying, by the TOS identifier, one or more specific differences between the information and the changed information, (e.g., Parhi, par. [0046]: the formatting engine constructs a data string as shown, in the formatted data 800. In the formatted data 800, + denotes the addition of new code) wherein each of the one or more specific differences are configured to be addressed as an updated feature in a tutorial document; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0064]: the code change description will be added in an existing document. For example, to update a “/getOrders” API endpoint section based on the following annotation [either the endpoint or the GET method of the annotation being a feature]).
describing, by the descriptor, each of the one or more specific differences; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0047]: based on the data string, the description engine uses machine learning techniques to generate a natural language description of the functionality change)
mapping, via the mapper, descriptions of each of the one or more specific differences to each of the updated features; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0059]: the location identification layer 163 determines a location within a given document where to add the generated description [mapping the description to a location]; par. [0086]: par. [0064]: the location identification layer 163 may scan a page to get a “/get Orders” API endpoint [feature, i.e., the location corresponds to a feature] section based on the following annotation that may be present in code changes])
generating, via the generator, one or more updated tutorial sections, wherein each of the one or more updated tutorial sections includes a respective one of the descriptions of the one or more specific differences and a respective one of the one or more updated features; (e.g., Parhi, Fig. 9 and associated text, par. [0064]: location identification layer 163 may scan a Confluence page to update a “/getOrders” API endpoint section; par. [0065]: the new functionality will be reflected in the appropriate document by including the generated natural language description of the one or more changes. Fig. 8 depicts documentation with a generated description of code changes [and see figure, it includes the updated feature because it includes a getOrder API endpoint and GET])
updating, via the synchronizer, the tutorial document with each of the mapped descriptions of the one or more specific differences and each of the one or more updated features; (see above, the updated section is part of a document).
Parhi does not explicitly disclose a renderer; a TOS verifier including a synchronizer; verifying, via the TOS verifier, the one or more updated tutorial sections; rendering, via the renderer, an updated tutorial document to present differentiated aspects of portions of the tutorial and the updated tutorial.
However, in an analogous art, Bodnick discloses:
a renderer (see below)
rendering, via the renderer, an updated tutorial document to present differentiated aspects of portions of the tutorial and the updated tutorial (e.g., Bodnick, par. [0004]: in the past, paper checklists have been used to document the steps needed to perform a task and guide a person when performing a task; par. [0114]: an interactive checklist can guide the performance of the one or more steps of the checklist; Fig. 215 and associated text, par. [0275]: in instances where users edit a guide, changes can be highlighted, for example, as shown in FIG. 215; par. [0369]: changes and/or modifications to a Guide can be presented on a draft version of the Guide, to highlight new items or changed items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the updated tutorial document of Bodnick, to include a renderer rendering the updated document to present differentiated aspects of portions of the original tutorial and the updated tutorial, as taught by Singh, as Singh would provide the advantage of a means of displaying to a user which portions of the tutorial have been changed. (See Bodnick, Fig. 215, par. [0275])
Further, in an analogous art, Phelan discloses:
a TOS verifier (see immediately below)
verifying, via the TOS verifier, the one or more tutorial sections; (e.g., Phelan, par. [0002]: common forms of documentation include on-line help files, man pages, reference manuals, etc.; par. [0029]: documents are tested and verified for accuracy; par. [0035]: weighting is given to certain areas [sections] of the documentation that are more critical),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the updated tutorial sections and synchronizer taught by Parhi, such the synchronizer is incorporated in a TOS verifier that validates the sections, as taught by Phelan, as Phelan would provide the advantage of a means of ensuring the documentation is accurate. (See Phelan, par, [0029]). See also M.P.E.P § 2144.04(V)(B).
As to claim 2, Parhi/Bodnick/Phelan discloses the method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Parhi further discloses:
wherein the method is configured as code executable by a bot (e.g., Parhi, par. [0114]: components of a processing system as disclosed herein can be implemented in the form of one or more software programs stored in memory and executed by a processor of a processing device [note that per par. [0044] of the specification, a conventional bot is a software program to perform tasks to reduce the burden or time for an individual to perform a task]).
As to claim 6, Parhi/Bodnick/Phelan discloses the method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Parhi further discloses:
wherein the changed information comprises at least one of: parameters, usages, features, or test cases (e.g., Parhi, Fig. 10B and associated text, FIGS 10A and 10B depict data corresponding to first code changes with highlighted key words [see figure, the code is at least a feature such as a class or method])
As to claim 7, Parhi/Bodnick/Phelan discloses the method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Parhi further discloses:
further comprising defining a data structure for saving TOS data (e.g., Parhi, par. [0046]: formatting engine constructs a data string, as shown in the formatted data. In the formatted data, -denotes removal of code and + denotes the addition of new code).
As to claim 8, it is a computer program product claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Parhi, include:
a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor (e.g., Parhi, par. [0114]: components of a processing system as disclosed herein can be implemented in the form of one or more software programs stored in memory and executed by a processor of a processing device) to perform (see rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 9, it is a computer program product claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 13, it is a computer program product claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 14, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Further limitations, disclosed by Parhi, include:
a computing system comprising:
a processor; (e.g., Parhi, Fig. 14 element 1410 and associated text)
a network module coupled to the processor to enable communication over a network; (e.g., Parhi, Fig. 14 element 1414 and associated text)
a computer-readable storage device coupled to the processor; (e.g., Parhi, Fig. 14 element 1412 and associated text)
a tutorial optimization and synchronization (TOS) manager module coupled to the network module; (e.g., Parhi, par. [0114]: components of a processing system as disclosed herein can be implemented in the form of one or more software programs stored in memory; par. [0073]: the platform 110 and the elements thereof comprise further hardware and software for running the design documentation platform 110 [any combination of hardware and software is coupled to the network module because the memory storing the software is coupled to it as shown in Figure 14])
a TOS identifier coupled to the processor, the TOS identifier including a descriptor, a mapper, a generator, (see above, these elements are all the software instructions perform their recited functions. The instructions are coupled to a processor because they are executed by the processor) and
a synchronizer; (see above, this element the software instructions perform its recited functions. The instructions are coupled to a processor because they are executed by the processor)
a TOS monitor coupled to the processor, the TOS monitor including a collector and a detector; (see above, these elements are all the software instructions perform their recited functions. The instructions are coupled to a processor because they are executed by the processor)) and
program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage device for execution by the processor via a memory, wherein execution of the instructions by the processor configures the computing device (e.g., Parhi, par. [0114]: components of a processing system as disclosed herein can be implemented in the form of one or more software programs stored in memory and executed by a processor of a processing device) to perform (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Parhi does not explicitly disclose: a graphical user interface coupled to the processor; a renderer; a TOS verifier coupled to the processor, the TOS verifier including a synchronizer.
However, in an analogous art, Bodnick discloses:
a graphical user interface coupled to the processor; (e.g., Bodnick, par. [0109]: turning to FIGS. 1-132 and 134-192, examples of [graphical, see figures] user interfaces. These user interfaces can be generated under the control of one or more hardware processor[s] of a computing device).
a renderer; (e.g., Bodnick, par. [0236]: processor 13314 can execute computer program to present on display user interfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Parhi to include a graphical user interface coupled to the processor and renderer, as taught by Bodnick, as Bodnick would provide the advantage of a means of displaying the tutorial. (See Bodnick, Fig. 215 and associated text).
Further, in an analogous art, Phelan discloses:
a TOS verifier coupled to the processor, (e.g., Phelan, par. [0002]: common forms of documentation include on-line help files, man pages, reference manuals, etc.; par. [0029]: documents are tested and verified for accuracy; par. [0058]: embodiments may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer-readable medium(s) having code embodied thereon; par. [0059]: a medium stores a program for use by an instruction execution system)
the TOS verifier (see immediately above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and synchronizer of Parhi by incorporating the synchronizer in a TOS verifier, as taught by Phelan, as Phelan would provide the advantage of a means of ensuring the documentation is accurate. (See Phelan, par, [0029]). See also M.P.E.P § 2144.04(V)(B).
As to claim 15, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 19, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 20, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parhi (US 2024/0362017) in view of Bodnick (2019/0286462) in view of Phelan (US 2015/0007137) in further view of Chorley et al. (US 2017/0329687) (art made of record – hereinafter Chorley).
As to claim 3, Parhi/Bodnick/Phelan discloses the method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the developing activities comprise testing activities.
However, in an analogous art, Chorley discloses:
wherein the developing activities comprise testing activities (e.g., Chorley, par. [0111]: the database for the application can be monitored and test plans triggered upon detection of a change of the application. Test plans may be run to produce SDLC documents as discussed above “(so a user manual could be automatically updated when an application is detected to have changed, for example)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the creation of documents taught by Parhi to incorporate comprising screenshotting, via the TOS monitor, developing activities such as test execution for incorporation into the updated tutorial document, as taught by Chorley, as Chorley would provide the advantage of a means of incorporating resultant behavior of software under development into the documentation. (See Chorley, par. [0079]).
As to claim 4, Parhi/Bodnick/Phelan /Chorley discloses the method of Claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), Parhi further discloses:
wherein the information relative to the developing activities comprises at least one of: changed code, code checkin/checkout, screenshots, verification code/script, verification parameters, realtime verification, log files in test systems, demos, associated environment settings, associated environment data, defect reports, design specifications, created/modified test cases, test scripts, test documents, test results, command output, or command related errors (e.g., Parhi, par. [0042]: code changes as plain text)
As to claim 5, Parhi/Bodnick/Phelan/Chorley discloses the method of Claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising screenshotting, via the TOS monitor, the developing activities for incorporation into the updated tutorial document.
However, in an analogous art, Chorley discloses:
further comprising screenshotting, via the TOS monitor, the developing activities for incorporation into the updated tutorial document (e.g., Chorley, par. [0111]: the database for the application can be monitored and test plans triggered upon detection of a change of the application. Test plans may be run to produce SDLC documents as discussed above “(so a user manual could be automatically updated when an application is detected to have changed, for example)”; par. [0079]: documentation can draw on outputs of the testing system 60 as screenshots, resultant behavior can be incorporated into automatically into the documentation; par. [0078]: documentation may take the form of documentation intended for users “(user guides, training documents, user stories, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the creation of documents taught by Parhi to incorporate comprising screenshotting, via the TOS monitor, developing activities such as test execution for incorporation into the updated tutorial document, as taught by Chorley, as Chorley would provide the advantage of a means of showing or highlighting a feature under discussion in the documentation. (See Chorley, par. [0079]).
As to claim 10, it is a computer program product claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 11, it is a computer program product claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 12, it is a computer program product claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 16, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3 Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 17, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 18, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights