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 .
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-22 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 10 and 19 have been amended. Claim(s) 21-22 are newly added. This action is Non-Final.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Office Action rejects claims 1 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to judicial exception without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections. Applicant first notes that the prior subject matter eligibility rejections are rendered moot given the substantive amendments set forth above.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 - 20 cannot be said to fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping, due to, for example, the requirements of, inter alia:
[...]
Applicant respectfully submits that as emphasized in the amended claims, the claims are directed to, inter alia, technical communication between an external service alert data repository and a project management system configured to manage development tasks related to development of one or more deployed services managed by the project management system. In addition, the claimed apparatus is configured to "output a plurality of team task interface components for rendering to the project management user interface" and "output [an] external service alert aggregation interface component for rendering to the project management user interface" based on external service alert data retrieved from the external service alert data repository. This does not merely amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as alleged in the Office Action. See Office Action, pages 4 - 6. Thus, the claims are allowable under Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework as at least not being directed to any abstract idea. In either event, the claims certainly amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims relate to a unique computer process with no abstract or non-computer based equivalent. The Deputy Commissioner for Patents recent guidance reminds Examiners, "[t]he mental process grouping is not without limits," particularly, "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance, when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)."1
The present claims relate to "outputting a plurality of team task interface components for rendering to the project management user interface...;""causing retrieval of external service alert data from an external service alert data repository...;""generating the external service alert aggregation interface component based on the external service alert data;" and "outputting the external service alert aggregation interface component for rendering to the project management user interface." These limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Independent claims 10 and 19 include similar recitations and are allowable for at least similar reasons.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the claims, as summarized by Applicant and as shown by a limitation-by-limitation analysis in 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below, are directed to outputting a plurality of team task components and external service alert aggregation [for] project management“output a plurality of team task componentscomponent” falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and/or (III). The examiner respectfully notes with respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” the aforementioned claim limitations recite managing interactions between people. The examiner respectfully notes that the “apparatus” and use of “interfaces”, as argued by the applicant, is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed “apparatus” and use of “interfaces” is noted to be a tool to perform the outputting a plurality of team task components and external service alert aggregation [for] project management. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the “apparatus” and use of “interfaces”, as argued by the applicant, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, the examiner respectfully notes with respect to “Mental Processes” the aforementioned claim limitations noted above recite steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Again, as noted above the examiner respectfully notes that the “apparatus” and use of “interfaces”, as argued by the applicant, is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed “apparatus” and use of “interfaces” is noted to be a tool to perform the outputting a plurality of team task components and external service alert aggregation [for] project management. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the “apparatus” and use of “interfaces”, as argued by the applicant, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection; further the examiner notes the following:
The examiner respectfully notes applicant’s arguments are directed to Srinivasan. Thus, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The examiner respectfully notes Taylor and newly found reference Waplington et al. (US 20240193051 A1) are noted to teach he amended claim features. Therefore, the examiner finds the argument directed to Srinivasan moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-22 are directed to a machine and/or process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
output a plurality of team task
access a user identifier and a team identifier associated with a project management
cause retrieval of external service alert data from an external service alert data repository based on the user identifier and the team identifier, wherein the external serve alert data is related functionally of the to one or more deployed services
generate the external service alert aggregation
output the external service alert aggregation
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations includes for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19 includes outputting a plurality of team tasks..., accessing and retrieving alert data based on a user identifier and team identifier and further generating and outputting aggregate alert data, thus, the claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19, i.e., apparatus w/ processor, memory, interfaces and further a rendered user interface; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19, includes outputting a plurality of team tasks..., accessing and retrieving alert data based on a user identifier and team identifier and further generating and outputting aggregate alert data, thus, encompasses steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19, recite i.e., apparatus w/ processor, memory, interfaces and further a rendered user interface. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0114]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19, i.e., apparatus w/ processor, memory, interfaces and further a rendered user interface; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 7-9, 11-18, and 20-22, claims 2-3, 7-9, 11-18, and 20-22 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) i.e., further features related to alert aggregation and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 2019/0266064 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2016/0364675 A1) and Waplington et al. (US 20240193051 A1) and Taylor et al. (US 8,037,542 B2).
Regarding Claim 1;
Srinivasan discloses an apparatus for outputting... an external service alert aggregation interface component... in a project management system (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 and [0031] - By employing the systems and techniques used herein, support personnel may work more efficiently to resolve an incident by using a unified incident management interface that enables the support personnel to promote a major incident candidate to a major incident up until the major incident is resolved. Furthermore, using the systems and techniques described herein, the support personnel may promote a major incident candidate to a major incident, examine a summary of the major incident, hold conference calls with other personnel to resolve the major incident, view previous communication with clients (e.g., users) associated with the major incident, and edit the post-incident report of the incident when the major incident has been resolved and [0056] - The navigation panel 262 may present the support personnel with a variety of selectable options to facilitate navigating through the unified incident management window 250. For example, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access the major incident candidates 224, the major incidents 226, and the resolved 232 or closed 234 major incidents 226. Further, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access various reports, services, and the like.) (As construed a major incident is a form of a project), the apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one non-transitory memory including program code, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor (FIG. 3), cause the apparatus to:
access a user identifier [and user who is associated with a team] associated with the project management user interface, wherein each of [a] plurality of team task interface components is associated with the user identifier [and user who is associated with a team] (FIG. 6 and FIG. 10 and FIG. 16 – depicts participates associated w/ teams and [0030] - For example, a service desk agent may review incidents, and a major incident manager may promote the major incident candidate to a major incident and resolve it to efficiently handle the various aspects of the process for resolving a major incident and [0057] - FIG. 6 is an embodiment of the overview section 252 and the navigation panel 262 of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5. To facilitate discussion, the impact summary section 254, the history summary section 256, the communication tasks section 258, and the groups summary section 260 of the unified incident management window 250 are discussed in greater detail in later figures but are omitted in FIG. 6 to simplify the presented material. With the preceding in mind, a support personnel 302 (e.g., “Sarah Smith” in this example) may be logged into the unified incident management window 250. In some instances, the support personnel 302 may be required to provide login credentials (e.g., a password) to access the unified incident management window 250);
cause retrieval of external service alert data from an external service alert data repository based on the user identifier... ([0044] - The one or more processors 202 access data in the memory 206 via the one or more busses 204 and [0049] - As discussed herein, the device and architectures described above may constitute platforms or systems on which an incident (e.g., service outage or other issue) and/or incident resolution process may occur and [0050] - In this example, a client (e.g., user) may experience a hardware or software-related issue, such as a service outage or other incident impacting their use of an application, a database, a communication channel, and so forth. The client may submit an incident 222 requiring servicing. When the incident 222 is received by a support personnel, the incident 222 is initially characterized as a major incident candidate 224 in the depicted flow. The support personnel may, upon review, evaluation, and/or confirmation of the existence and/or severity of the incident and promote the major incident candidate 224 to a major incident 226 (e.g., active incident). One or more support personnel may work toward resolving the major incident 226. In some embodiments, when the major incident candidate 224 is initially promoted to a major incident 226, the major incident 226 may exist as a new 228 major incident 226 in the server 126 and [0057] - FIG. 6 is an embodiment of the overview section 252 and the navigation panel 262 of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5. To facilitate discussion, the impact summary section 254, the history summary section 256, the communication tasks section 258, and the groups summary section 260 of the unified incident management window 250 are discussed in greater detail in later figures but are omitted in FIG. 6 to simplify the presented material. With the preceding in mind, a support personnel 302 (e.g., “Sarah Smith” in this example) may be logged into the unified incident management window 250. In some instances, the support personnel 302 may be required to provide login credentials (e.g., a password) to access the unified incident management window 250.);
generate the external service alert aggregation interface component based on the external service alert data (FIG. 6 and [0056] - The navigation panel 262 may present the support personnel with a variety of selectable options to facilitate navigating through the unified incident management window 250. For example, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access the major incident candidates 224, the major incidents 226, and the resolved 232 or closed 234 major incidents 226. Further, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access various reports, services, and the like); and
output the external service alert aggregation interface component for rendering to the project management user interface (FIG. 6 and [0056] - The navigation panel 262 may present the support personnel with a variety of selectable options to facilitate navigating through the unified incident management window 250. For example, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access the major incident candidates 224, the major incidents 226, and the resolved 232 or closed 234 major incidents 226. Further, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access various reports, services, and the like).
Srinivasan fails to explicitly disclose:
An apparatus for outputting a plurality of team task interface components and an external alert aggregation interface component in a project management user interface of a project management system...,
output a plurality of team task interface components for rendering to the project management user interface, wherein each of the plurality of team task interface components is associated with a development task related to development of one or more deployed services managed by the project management system;
access ... a team identifier... [associated with the project management] user interface, wherein each of the plurality of team task interface components is associated with... the team identifier;
cause retrieval of ... data from [a]... data repository based on... the team identifier, wherein the external service alert data is related to a functionality of the one or more deployed services
However, in an analogous art, Sharma teaches:
An apparatus for outputting a plurality of team task interface components ... in a project management user interface of a project management system... (FIG. 1):
output a plurality of team task interface components for rendering to the project management user interface, wherein each of the plurality of team task interface components is associated with a development task related to development ... managed by the project management system (FIG. 1 and [0015] - FIG. 1 is a diagram of an overview of an example implementation 100 described herein. As shown in FIG. 1, a host server may obtain information related to an agile development project (e.g., “Development Information”) and [0040] and [0047] - For example, host server 220 may select a set of developers, a set of managers, or the like that are to be provided the agile development user interface for providing information, altering information, updating information, or the like.);
... wherein each of the plurality of team task interface components is associated with... the team identifier (FIG. 1 – as construed depicts “team identifiers” and [0015] and [0040] - For example, host server 220 may obtain information indicating goals that are achievable by different development teams completing the agile development project and rewards associated with the goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sharma to the project management] user interface of Srinivasan to include An apparatus for outputting a plurality of team task interface components ... in a project management user interface of a project management system...: output a plurality of team task interface components for rendering to the project management user interface, wherein each of the plurality of team task interface components is associated with a development task related to development ... managed by the project management system; [and] ... wherein each of the plurality of team task interface components is associated with... the team identifier
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sharma to Srinivasan to do so as it provides / allows [to] reduce the likelihood of cost overruns, delays, or errors in an agile development project relative to a project developed without an end-to-end development platform ([0013]).
Further, in an analogous art, Waplington teaches:
An apparatus for outputting ... an external alert aggregation interface component in a project management user interface of a project management system... (FIG. 7A):
output ... a development task related to development of one or more deployed services managed by the project management system ([0165]-[0168] - For purposes of further illustration, FIG. 7A depicts a listing 700 of available snapshots of configuration data organized by environment, where “prod” indicates production, “test” indicates testing, and “dev” indicates development. This listing may be obtained by way of a web interface of the remote network management platform, such as a web interface of centralized configuration data model 612);
cause [retrieval of external service alert data from an external service alert data repository], wherein the external service alert data is related to a functionality of the one or more deployed services ([0165]-[0168] - Continuing with this scenario, suppose that the package associated with snapshot prod-v8.dpl 702 is deployed in the production environment. This environment may be configured to produce alerts when various types of problems or potential problems are detected. For example, the environment may produce an alert when no searches have been conducted for the last 15 minutes (given that thousands of users are expected to be using the search service, such an event is expected to be quite rare). As a result, the remote network management platform may generate an alert).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Waplington to the project management] user interface of Srinivasan in view of Sharma to include An apparatus for outputting ... an external alert aggregation interface component in a project management user interface of a project management system...: output ... a development task related to development of one or more deployed services managed by the project management system; [and] cause [retrieval of external service alert data from an external service alert data repository], wherein the external service alert data is related to a functionality of the one or more deployed services.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Waplington to Srinivasan in view of Sharma to do so as it provides / allows for configuration faults [to] be quickly identified and triaged without having to examine thousands of parameters in numerous locations. (Waplington, [0004]).
However, in an analogous art, Taylor teaches:
access [a user identifier] and a team identifier [associated with a project management user interface]... wherein components is associated with [the user identifier and] the team identifier (col. 3, lines 34-46 and col. 7, lines 4-25 and col. 10, lines 26-34 - If the bypass flag is false or the requested is not an administrator, then an SQL query to enforce membership, that preferably consists of a right join on team_memberships that matches the user_id that is retrieving the data with the team_id from the data that is being retrieved, is added to the query in step 96. Then the remainder of the query is written. This new query will only return items to which the user should have access and enforce security based on the team membership); [and]
cause retrieval of ... data from [a]... data repository based on [the user identifier and] the team identifier... (col. 3, lines 34-46 and col. 7, lines 4-25 - If, for instance, the user requests an HTML presentation of the detail view of the contact module for a specified contact, here is the flow of what happens. The user hits the controller named index.php. It handles most of the logic for the main application. The index controller loads the current user, verifies authentication and session information, loads the language for the user and produces some of the UI shell. It then calls the contact module and request the detail view for the specified contact. The contact module retrieves the SugarBean for the requested contact. The SugarBean verifies row level security at this point. If the record is not retrieved successfully, then the process aborts and the user is not allowed to view the data for the record. If the retrieve succeeds then it uses the XTemplate mechanism and the code for the current user's theme to create the UI for presentation. The resulting UI is sent back to the client that requested it.and col. 10, lines 26-34 - If the bypass flag is false or the requested is not an administrator, then an SQL query to enforce membership, that preferably consists of a right join on team_memberships that matches the user_id that is retrieving the data with the team_id from the data that is being retrieved, is added to the query in step 96. Then the remainder of the query is written. This new query will only return items to which the user should have access and enforce security based on the team membership).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Taylor to the accessing and retrieval of Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and to include access [a user identifier] and a team identifier [associated with a project management user interface]... wherein components is associated with [the user identifier and] the team identifier; [and] cause retrieval of ... data from [a]... data repository based on [the user identifier and] the team identifier....
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Taylor to Srinivasan and Sharma and Waplington to do so as it provides / allows for very fast retrieval of data for graphing, viewing, and exporting even when the organizational chart is huge while [making] it very easy to answer if a given user should have access to a given piece of data (Taylor, col. 3, lines 14-18).
Regarding Claim 2;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 1.
Srinivasan further discloses wherein the external service alert data comprises external service active alert data and external service active incident data ([0050] - The client may submit an incident 222 requiring servicing. When the incident 222 is received by a support personnel, the incident 222 is initially characterized as a major incident candidate 224 in the depicted flow. The support personnel may, upon review, evaluation, and/or confirmation of the existence and/or severity of the incident and promote the major incident candidate 224 to a major incident 226 (e.g., active incident) (i.e., construed as active incident data) and [0058] - The depicted unified incident management window 250 also includes an overview section 252 that includes an incident number 306, in this example, “INC000003,” associated with an incident 222. In the depicted embodiment, the overview section 252 further includes a prompt 316 to promote (the major incident candidate 224) to a major incident 226 or to designate the major incident 226 as new 228, in progress 230, and/or resolved 232. Furthermore, the overview section 252 may include a brief description of the incident 222 to be resolved, as submitted by the clients. The incident 222, in this example “Capacity Storage,” and associated information may be depicted on the overview section 252. For example, the information associated with the incident 222 may include the date and time created (e.g., “Created: Jan. 2, 2018; 11:11 pm”), the support personnel (e.g., “Assigned to Sarah Smith”) assigned the incident 222, a level of priority (e.g., Priority 1), severity of the incident 222 (e.g., Critical), the relevant category (e.g., Cloud Services), or any combination thereof, among other associated information. (i.e., construed as active alert data)).
Regarding Claim 3;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 1.
Srinivasan further discloses wherein the project management user interface further comprises a user identifier filter engagement component (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 and [0056] - The navigation panel 262 may present the support personnel with a variety of selectable options to facilitate navigating through the unified incident management window 250. For example, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access the major incident candidates 224, the major incidents 226, and the resolved 232 or closed 234 major incidents 226. Further, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access various reports, services, and the like), and wherein in response to user engagement with the user identifier filter engagement component (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 – 262), the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor (FIG. 3), cause the apparatus to:
cause retrieval of user focused external service alert data from the external service alert data repository or from the external service alert data based on the user identifier (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 –301 w/ 222 and 250 (i.e., Sara Smith) and [0051] - FIG. 5 is an example of the general sections of a unified incident management window 250 used for tracking progress associated with resolving a major incident 226. The user interface may, in one embodiment, present the unified incident management window 250 as a browser window. Accordingly, the depicted embodiment of the general sections of the unified incident management window 250 is presented as a view of a screen or display illustrating one possible arrangement of various features on a display of a computing device. However, the arrangement of the various features, organized into specific section, is not limited to the embodiment depicted, since the various features can occupy other positions on the display of the computing device. Accordingly, the illustrated sections may be otherwise positioned on the display. Moreover, it should be noted, that the embodiment depicted in FIG. 4 is meant to introduce the reader to the different possible sections (e.g., portions) of the unified management window 250. For example, the depicted unified management window 250 includes an overview section 252, an impact summary section 254, a history summary section 256, a communication tasks section 258, a groups summary section 260, and a navigation panel 262 and [0052] - In one embodiment, the overview section 252 may provide a support personnel with a high level overview of the major incident 226 submitted by the client. For example, the overview section 252 may provide a status identifier for the incident 222 submitted by the client, such that the status identifier indicates whether the incident 222 is a major incident candidate 224, a major incident 226 (e.g., new 228, in progress 230, or resolved 232), or closed 234 and [0053] - In one embodiment, the summary feature 270 presents the support personnel with an overview of the incident 222. For example, the summary feature 270 may include an overview of one or more of the services impacted by the incident 222, the configuration items (CIs) affected by the incident 222, the outages resulting from the incident 222, the locations impacted by the incident 222, the child incidents, among other information, as discussed in detail below and [0056] and [0058]);
generate a user focused project management user interface comprising a plurality of user task interface components, each of the plurality of user task interface components associated with the user identifier (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 –301 w/ 222 and 250 (i.e., Sara Smith) and [0051] - FIG. 5 is an example of the general sections of a unified incident management window 250 used for tracking progress associated with resolving a major incident 226. The user interface may, in one embodiment, present the unified incident management window 250 as a browser window. Accordingly, the depicted embodiment of the general sections of the unified incident management window 250 is presented as a view of a screen or display illustrating one possible arrangement of various features on a display of a computing device. However, the arrangement of the various features, organized into specific section, is not limited to the embodiment depicted, since the various features can occupy other positions on the display of the computing device. Accordingly, the illustrated sections may be otherwise positioned on the display. Moreover, it should be noted, that the embodiment depicted in FIG. 4 is meant to introduce the reader to the different possible sections (e.g., portions) of the unified management window 250. For example, the depicted unified management window 250 includes an overview section 252, an impact summary section 254, a history summary section 256, a communication tasks section 258, a groups summary section 260, and a navigation panel 262);
generate a user focused external service alert aggregation interface component based on the user focused external service alert data identifier (FIG. 6 – 301 w/ 222 and 250 (i.e., Sara Smith) and [0050] and [0051] - FIG. 5 is an example of the general sections of a unified incident management window 250 used for tracking progress associated with resolving a major incident 226. The user interface may, in one embodiment, present the unified incident management window 250 as a browser window. Accordingly, the depicted embodiment of the general sections of the unified incident management window 250 is presented as a view of a screen or display illustrating one possible arrangement of various features on a display of a computing device. However, the arrangement of the various features, organized into specific section, is not limited to the embodiment depicted, since the various features can occupy other positions on the display of the computing device. Accordingly, the illustrated sections may be otherwise positioned on the display. Moreover, it should be noted, that the embodiment depicted in FIG. 4 is meant to introduce the reader to the different possible sections (e.g., portions) of the unified management window 250. For example, the depicted unified management window 250 includes an overview section 252, an impact summary section 254, a history summary section 256, a communication tasks section 258, a groups summary section 260, and a navigation panel 262 and [0052] - In one embodiment, the overview section 252 may provide a support personnel with a high level overview of the major incident 226 submitted by the client. For example, the overview section 252 may provide a status identifier for the incident 222 submitted by the client, such that the status identifier indicates whether the incident 222 is a major incident candidate 224, a major incident 226 (e.g., new 228, in progress 230, or resolved 232), or closed 234 and [0053] - In one embodiment, the summary feature 270 presents the support personnel with an overview of the incident 222. For example, the summary feature 270 may include an overview of one or more of the services impacted by the incident 222, the configuration items (CIs) affected by the incident 222, the outages resulting from the incident 222, the locations impacted by the incident 222, the child incidents, among other information, as discussed in detail below and [0056]-[0058] - The depicted unified incident management window 250 also includes an overview section 252 that includes an incident number 306, in this example, “INC000003,” associated with an incident 222. In the depicted embodiment, the overview section 252 further includes a prompt 316 to promote (the major incident candidate 224) to a major incident 226 or to designate the major incident 226 as new 228, in progress 230, and/or resolved 232.); and
output the user focused external service alert aggregation interface component for rendering to the user focused project management user interface (FIG. 6 – 301 w/ 222 and 250 (i.e., Sara Smith) and [0050] and [0051] - FIG. 5 is an example of the general sections of a unified incident management window 250 used for tracking progress associated with resolving a major incident 226. The user interface may, in one embodiment, present the unified incident management window 250 as a browser window. Accordingly, the depicted embodiment of the general sections of the unified incident management window 250 is presented as a view of a screen or display illustrating one possible arrangement of various features on a display of a computing device. However, the arrangement of the various features, organized into specific section, is not limited to the embodiment depicted, since the various features can occupy other positions on the display of the computing device. Accordingly, the illustrated sections may be otherwise positioned on the display. Moreover, it should be noted, that the embodiment depicted in FIG. 4 is meant to introduce the reader to the different possible sections (e.g., portions) of the unified management window 250. For example, the depicted unified management window 250 includes an overview section 252, an impact summary section 254, a history summary section 256, a communication tasks section 258, a groups summary section 260, and a navigation panel 262 and [0052] - In one embodiment, the overview section 252 may provide a support personnel with a high level overview of the major incident 226 submitted by the client. For example, the overview section 252 may provide a status identifier for the incident 222 submitted by the client, such that the status identifier indicates whether the incident 222 is a major incident candidate 224, a major incident 226 (e.g., new 228, in progress 230, or resolved 232), or closed 234 and [0053] - In one embodiment, the summary feature 270 presents the support personnel with an overview of the incident 222. For example, the summary feature 270 may include an overview of one or more of the services impacted by the incident 222, the configuration items (CIs) affected by the incident 222, the outages resulting from the incident 222, the locations impacted by the incident 222, the child incidents, among other information, as discussed in detail below and [0056] and [0058]).
Regarding Claim 5;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 1.
Srinivasan further discloses wherein the external service alert aggregation interface component comprises an external service active alert engagement component and an external service active incident engagement component (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 – w/ 262 and 301 w/ 222 and FIG. 7-8 and FIG. 10 and [0050] and [0053] - In one embodiment, the summary feature 270 presents the support personnel with an overview of the incident 222. For example, the summary feature 270 may include an overview of one or more of the services impacted by the incident 222, the configuration items (CIs) affected by the incident 222, the outages resulting from the incident 222, the locations impacted by the incident 222, the child incidents, among other information, as discussed in detail below and [0056] - The navigation panel 262 may present the support personnel with a variety of selectable options to facilitate navigating through the unified incident management window 250. For example, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access the major incident candidates 224, the major incidents 226, and the resolved 232 or closed 234 major incidents 226. Further, the navigation panel 262 may enable the support personnel to access various reports, services, and the like and [0058] - The depicted unified incident management window 250 also includes an overview section 252 that includes an incident number 306, in this example, “INC000003,” associated with an incident 222) and wherein in response to user engagement with the external service active alert engagement component or the external service active incident engagement component (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 – 301 w/ 222), the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor (FIG. 3), cause the apparatus to:
generate an external service alert detail interface component based on the external service alert data (FIG. 7-8 and FIG. 10 and [0061]-[0071], more specifically, at least, [0061] - Turning to FIG. 7, the remaining portions of one implementation of the unified incident management window 250 are depicted. In this example, an embodiment of a portion of the unified incident management window 250 is shown when the summary feature 270 is selected. In some instances, when the support personnel accesses (e.g., or logs into) the unified incident management window 250, the support personnel may be presented with the summary feature 270 pre-selected. The summary feature 270 may be included in a box, as depicted, to indicate that the summary feature 270 is selected and that summary feature information is being presented and at least, [0065] FIG. 8 is an embodiment of another portion of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5 when the summary feature 270 of FIG. 7 is selected); and
output the external service alert detail interface component for rendering to the project management user interface (FIG. 7-8 and FIG. 10 and [0061]-[0071], more specifically, at least, [0061] - Turning to FIG. 7, the remaining portions of one implementation of the unified incident management window 250 are depicted. In this example, an embodiment of a portion of the unified incident management window 250 is shown when the summary feature 270 is selected. In some instances, when the support personnel accesses (e.g., or logs into) the unified incident management window 250, the support personnel may be presented with the summary feature 270 pre-selected. The summary feature 270 may be included in a box, as depicted, to indicate that the summary feature 270 is selected and that summary feature information is being presented and at least, [0065] - FIG. 8 is an embodiment of another portion of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5 when the summary feature 270 of FIG. 7 is selected).
Regarding Claim 7;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 6.
Srinivasan further discloses wherein the external service alert detail interface component comprises an alert list interface component and an alert details interface component (FIG. 7-8 and FIG. 10 and [0061]-[0071], more specifically, at least, [0061] - Turning to FIG. 7, the remaining portions of one implementation of the unified incident management window 250 are depicted. In this example, an embodiment of a portion of the unified incident management window 250 is shown when the summary feature 270 is selected. In some instances, when the support personnel accesses (e.g., or logs into) the unified incident management window 250, the support personnel may be presented with the summary feature 270 pre-selected. The summary feature 270 may be included in a box, as depicted, to indicate that the summary feature 270 is selected and that summary feature information is being presented and at least, [0065] - FIG. 8 is an embodiment of another portion of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5 when the summary feature 270 of FIG. 7 is selected).
Regarding Claim 8;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 7.
Srinivasan further discloses wherein the alert details interface component comprises an alert priority indicator component and an alert status indicator component (FIG. 6 and FIG. 10 - and [0058] - For example, the information associated with the incident 222 may include the date and time created (e.g., “Created: Jan. 2, 2018; 11:11 pm”), the support personnel (e.g., “Assigned to Sarah Smith”) assigned the incident 222, a level of priority (e.g., Priority 1), severity of the incident 222 (e.g., Critical), the relevant category (e.g., Cloud Services), or any combination thereof, among other associated information).
Regarding Claim 9;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 7.
Srinivasan further discloses wherein the alert list interface component comprises one or more alert action engagement components each associated with an alert identifier (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 –222), wherein in response to user engagement with a selected alert action engagement component (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 – 301 w/ 222), the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor (FIG. 3), cause the apparatus to:
identify a selected alert identifier associated with the selected alert action engagement component (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 – w/ 262 and 301 w/ 222 and FIG. 7-8 and FIG. 10 and [0050] and [0053] - In one embodiment, the summary feature 270 presents the support personnel with an overview of the incident 222. For example, the summary feature 270 may include an overview of one or more of the services impacted by the incident 222, the configuration items (CIs) affected by the incident 222, the outages resulting from the incident 222, the locations impacted by the incident 222, the child incidents, among other information, as discussed in detail below and [0058] - The depicted unified incident management window 250 also includes an overview section 252 that includes an incident number 306, in this example, “INC000003,” associated with an incident 222 and [0061]-[0071], more specifically, at least, [0061] - Turning to FIG. 7, the remaining portions of one implementation of the unified incident management window 250 are depicted. In this example, an embodiment of a portion of the unified incident management window 250 is shown when the summary feature 270 is selected. In some instances, when the support personnel accesses (e.g., or logs into) the unified incident management window 250, the support personnel may be presented with the summary feature 270 pre-selected. The summary feature 270 may be included in a box, as depicted, to indicate that the summary feature 270 is selected and that summary feature information is being presented and at least, [0065] FIG. 8 is an embodiment of another portion of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5 when the summary feature 270 of FIG. 7 is selected);
cause retrieval of selected external service alert data from the external service alert data repository based on the selected alert identifier (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 – w/ 262 and 301 w/ 222 and FIG. 7-8 and FIG. 10 and [0050] and [0053] - In one embodiment, the summary feature 270 presents the support personnel with an overview of the incident 222. For example, the summary feature 270 may include an overview of one or more of the services impacted by the incident 222, the configuration items (CIs) affected by the incident 222, the outages resulting from the incident 222, the locations impacted by the incident 222, the child incidents, among other information, as discussed in detail below and [0058] - The depicted unified incident management window 250 also includes an overview section 252 that includes an incident number 306, in this example, “INC000003,” associated with an incident 222 and [0061]-[0071], more specifically, at least, [0061] - Turning to FIG. 7, the remaining portions of one implementation of the unified incident management window 250 are depicted. In this example, an embodiment of a portion of the unified incident management window 250 is shown when the summary feature 270 is selected. In some instances, when the support personnel accesses (e.g., or logs into) the unified incident management window 250, the support personnel may be presented with the summary feature 270 pre-selected. The summary feature 270 may be included in a box, as depicted, to indicate that the summary feature 270 is selected and that summary feature information is being presented and at least, [0065] FIG. 8 is an embodiment of another portion of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5 when the summary feature 270 of FIG. 7 is selected);
generate an external service alert modification interface component based on the selected external service alert data (FIG. 10 and [0073] - FIG. 10 is an embodiment of another portion of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5 in which an incident 222 is marked as a major incident 226. As illustrated, the incident 222, in this example, identified as “Capacity Shortage,” is promoted to a major incident 226, as indicated by the block of the major incident 226 next to the name of the issue. In addition, after the incident 222 is promoted to a major incident 226, the overview section 252 may also include the state 370 of the major incident 226. In this example, the state may be “In Progress,” 230 because the major incident 226 is being worked on toward resolution. While the major incident 226 is being worked on, a clock 372 may track the duration from when the incident 222 was first reported and/or the duration during which the major incident 226 has been worked on. By clicking the prompt 316, the major incident 226 may be marked as resolved); and
output the external service alert modification interface component for rendering to the project management user interface (FIG. 10 and [0073] - FIG. 10 is an embodiment of another portion of the unified incident management window 250 of FIG. 5 in which an incident 222 is marked as a major incident 226. As illustrated, the incident 222, in this example, identified as “Capacity Shortage,” is promoted to a major incident 226, as indicated by the block of the major incident 226 next to the name of the issue. In addition, after the incident 222 is promoted to a major incident 226, the overview section 252 may also include the state 370 of the major incident 226. In this example, the state may be “In Progress,” 230 because the major incident 226 is being worked on toward resolution. While the major incident 226 is being worked on, a clock 372 may track the duration from when the incident 222 was first reported and/or the duration during which the major incident 226 has been worked on. By clicking the prompt 316, the major incident 226 may be marked as resolved).
Regarding Claim(s) 10-18; claim(s) 10-18 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the apparatus claimed in claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-9. Claim(s) 10-18 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-9, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 19-20; claim(s) 19-20 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the apparatus claimed in claim(s) 1-2. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1-2, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 21;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 1.
Sharma further teaches wherein the project management user interface comprises a scrum board interface (FIG. 5B and [0036] and [0061]).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Sharma to Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor, as per Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 22;
Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor disclose the method to Claim 1.
Sharma further teaches wherein the plurality of team task interface components are associated with an initiated sprint configured to track the development tasks associated with the plurality of team task interface components managed by the project management system (FIG. 1 and FIG. 5B and [0036] and [0061] and [0062] - As further shown in FIG. 5B, each release phase (e.g., “Release 1.0,” “Release 1.1,” etc.) includes a set of sprints (e.g., segments of development). A user interaction with a button to select a particular sprint may cause the agile development user interface to provide information regarding the particular sprint (e.g., a schedule, a set of tasks, a set of developers assigned to a particular task, etc.) and/or may facilitate alteration of the particular sprint).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Sharma to Srinivasan in view of Sharma and Waplington and Taylor, as per Claim 1, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights