Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthuraman (US 20200210215 A1), and further in view of Strinden (US 20190102072 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Muthuraman teaches a flow designer system for creating flows, the system comprising:
a database system implemented using a server system (par. 0023: “Each of the data centers 18 includes a plurality of virtual servers 26 (also referred to herein as application nodes, application servers, virtual server instances, application instances, or application server instances), where each virtual server 26 can be implemented on a physical computing system, such as a single electronic computing device (e.g., a single physical hardware server) or across multiple-computing devices (e.g., multiple physical hardware servers). Examples of virtual servers 26 include, but are not limited to a web server (e.g., a unitary Apache installation), an application server (e.g., unitary Java® Virtual Machine), and/or a database server, e.g., a unitary MySQL® catalog (MySQL® is a registered trademark owned by MySQL AB A COMPANY).”), the database system configurable to cause:
displaying, at a display device, a flow designer design environment configurable to create and edit a flow, the flow designer design environment including a graphical representation of the flow, the flow implementing an automated process including at least a set of actions corresponding to computer-readable instructions (par. 0037: “In the depicted embodiment, the Flow Designer system 112 includes a flow designer GUI 302, e.g., a visual information flow creation tool. The flow designer GUI 302 may provide for visual programming via natural languages as opposed to entering text representative of a computer program. The flow designer GUI 302 may include executable code or computer instructions suitable for creating, managing, accessing, and/or editing the flow objects 300.”); and
processing a plurality of edits to the flow via the flow designer design environment, the edits including defining a record-based trigger and defining one or more actions, the record-based trigger configured to cause the flow to run responsive to a designated record being created, updated, or deleted (par. 0038: “The flow 301 may include a trigger 304 which may be “fired” or otherwise turned on by certain changed condition, such as a change in one or more records stored in a database (e.g., stored in the virtual DB servers 104).”).
Muthuraman fails to teach testing a plurality of different instances of the flow to determine at least if the flow completes successfully, each different instance of the flow differing from one or more other different instances of the flow by one or more elements, the testing of the different instances of the flow causing generation of runtime information about the flow including runtime performance of the different instances of the flow;
displaying, in the flow designer design environment, the runtime information about the flow, the runtime information about the flow including at least run duration information for one or more actions of the set of actions; and
updating the graphical representation of the flow according to the edits.
Strinden teaches testing a plurality of different instances of the flow to determine at least if the flow completes successfully (par. 0072: “As such, multiple configuration engineers are able to create, modify, and test graphical configurations and definitions (and in some situations, simultaneously) without impacting runtime operations of the subject configurations, e.g., as illustrated by the m draft configurations of ViewN and the published configuration of the ViewN.”), each different instance of the flow differing from one or more other different instances of the flow by one or more elements (par. 0073: “Significantly, various display-related configurations or definitions (whether of display views and/or of display view elements) may respectively define a set of operator-selectable customizations that are made available for the operator to modify the appearance of the corresponding display view or display view element during runtime as the operator desires, without having to create and/or download a revised configuration, and without the display view, the display view element, or the user interface device on which the display view is executing having to obtain additional configuration data indicative of the modification from another computing device (e.g., from a computing device or database included in the configuration environment 102, or from a computing device or database included in the operating environment 102 that locally stores configuration data or copies thereof).”), the testing of the different instances of the flow causing generation of runtime information about the flow including runtime performance of the different instances of the flow (par. 0067: “Typically, a display view definition 112 is configured to include at least one display element (e.g., a graphical element) that is linked to a particular control module, device, or other type of control object so that in the operating environment 105, runtime data associated with the particular control module, device, or control object may be represented via the linked display element(s) on the executing display view, e.g., in a continually or repeatedly updated manner.”);
displaying, in the flow designer design environment, the runtime information about the flow, the runtime information about the flow including at least run duration information for one or more actions of the set of actions (par. 0067, as above); and
updating the graphical representation of the flow according to the edits (par. 0067, as above).
It would have been obvious to one familiar in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the graphical display configuration of Strinden with the interface creation system of Muthuraman, as both are in the same field of endeavor of flow design. Doing so would enable one to test multiple different flows in the system of Muthuraman simultaneously and compare runtime information, which would be obviously beneficial to one familiar in the art who wished to improve the efficiency of a flow they were designing.
Regarding claim 22, Muthuraman and Strinden teach the flow designer system of claim 21. Strinden further teaches wherein the runtime information about the flow includes one or more of: a current state, actions or steps run, or runtime values produced (par. 0010: “To effect particular, customized appearances and/or behaviors of the display view at a particular operator workstation, though, during runtime the particular operator workstation at which the display view is executing must query or otherwise communicate with the graphical configuration environment to obtain necessary information (such as particular configurations of various graphics, runtime values, and/or other information) to effect or implement the desired customized appearances and/or behaviors of the display view at the particular operator workstation.”).
Regarding claim 23, Muthuraman and Strinden teach the flow designer system of claim 21. Strinden further teaches wherein the runtime information about the flow includes one or more of: configuration details or runtime values for components of the flow (par. 0010, as above).
Regarding claim 24, Muthuraman and Strinden teach the flow designer system of claim 23. Strinden further teaches wherein a trigger or action in the flow designer design environment is selectable to expand an element and display configuration and runtime details about the element (par. 0101: “A display view element selection pane or palette 370 may also be included for selecting display view elements such as faceplate elements, tab elements, bar graph elements, data elements, datalink elements, write elements, buttons, sliders, alarm elements, alarm detail elements, function block elements, navigation bar elements, GEM elements (e.g., such as described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/692,450 filed on Aug. 31, 2017 and entitled “Derived and Linked Definitions with Override,” the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein), or any other suitable display view elements.”).
Regarding claim 25, Muthuraman and Strinden teach the flow designer system of claim 21. Muthuraman further teaches wherein the automated process further includes subflows and can be triggered by an event, resulting in automation of business logic for an application (par. 0039: “In the depicted embodiment, the trigger 304 initiates execution of the sub-flow 306. The sub-flow 306 may include Actions, control logic (e.g., Boolean logic, branching logic, termination logic), other sub-flows, and so on. The sub-flow 306 may additionally take in inputs and provide outputs. For example, output of the sub-flow 306 may be used as input to the Action 308. The Action 308 may use the inputs provided to execute Steps 314, 316. The Action 308 may also include control logic. Steps, such as the Steps 314, 316, and may be self-contained code, such as scripts (e.g., Java, JavaScript code) provided by the manufacturer of the flow designer system 112.”).
Regarding claim 26, Muthuraman and Strinden teach the flow designer system of claim 21. Strinden further teaches wherein the flow designer design environment includes a selector control to display configuration and runtime results for one or more items processed by flow logic (par. 0106: “One example of such a feature is that of the previewing of operator display views and/or portions thereof. As mentioned above, the graphical display configuration application 110 presents a preview of the in-progress graphics during the configuration work flow, e.g., continuously on the canvas, or in a preview mode. FIG. 4 illustrates a preview 400 of an example display view hierarchy, which may be utilized by the configuration engineer during the creation and/or edit of the display view hierarchy configuration within the configuration environment 102. The configuration engineer may select a particular hierarchy from several hierarchies to preview, such as Hierarchy 1. The preview 400 includes a hierarchy pane 410 for viewing the hierarchy of display views. An interactive preview portion 420 is also included for selecting navigation buttons from a navigation bar to verify that the navigation bar presents the display views according to the hierarchy. “).
Regarding claim 27, Muthuraman and Strinden teach the flow designer system of claim 21. Muthuraman further teaches wherein the flow designer design environment is further configurable to open records related to the flow (par. 0038: “The flow 301 may include a trigger 304 which may be “fired” or otherwise turned on by certain changed condition, such as a change in one or more records stored in a database (e.g., stored in the virtual DB servers 104). The trigger 304 may additionally be “fired” periodically, for example, as part of a schedule (e.g., hourly schedule, daily schedule, weekly schedule, monthly schedule, and so on). The trigger 304 may thus be used to initiate execution of other flow objects 300, such as sub-flow 306, Action 308, Action 310, and sub-flow 312.”).
Claim 28 is substantially similar to claim 21, and differs primarily in that it teaches a computer program comprising computer-readable code rather than a system. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 21.
Claim 29 is substantially similar to claim 22, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 22.
Claim 30 is substantially similar to claim 23, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 23.
Claim 31 is substantially similar to claim 24, and differs only in that it depends from claim 30 instead of claim 23. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 24.
Claim 32 is substantially similar to claim 25, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 25.
Claim 33 is substantially similar to claim 26, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 26.
Claim 34 is substantially similar to claim 27, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 27.
Claim 35 is substantially similar to claim 21, and differs primarily in that it teaches a method rather than a system. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 21.
Claim 36 is substantially similar to claim 22, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 22.
Claim 37 is substantially similar to claim 23, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 23.
Claim 38 is substantially similar to claim 24, and differs only in that it depends from claim 30 instead of claim 23. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 24.
Claim 39 is substantially similar to claim 25, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 25.
Claim 40 is substantially similar to claim 26, and differs only in that it depends from claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A BARHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/RYAN ALLEN BARHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights