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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the communication filed on 04/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed in the Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1-2)) because there is one single view of the drawing presented separately in two different sheets.
The drawing of Figure 4A in sheet 5 is extended in sheet 6 and labeled as
“FIG. 4A CONTINUED”. This presentation of FIG. 4A fails under 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1-2))
See in MPEP:
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.
(2) Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
It should be noted that any change/correction in the Figures, must be updated correspondingly in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because the claims recited the limitations “the first graphical user interface being one of low-code and no-code”. The element ‘low-code’ and the element ‘no-code’ are two different aspects of code. Using “one” of “low-code and no-code” would be logically contradicted in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-8 and 18-20 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.
Claims 2-8 recites “The computer-readable code” in “The computer-readable code of claim 1…”, and
Claims 18-20 recites “The computer-readable code” in “The computer-readable code of claim 17…”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims since claim 1 and claim 17 do not recite “computer-readable code” in the claim . Thus, the claims 2-8, and 18-20 are indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).
A dependent claim in a patent application must explicitly reference and limit the scope of the claim it depends on, therefore, it requires each of the claims to amend to recite with sufficient antecedent basis.
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 1-8, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to computer program per se.
As per claims 1-8 and 17-20: Claim 1 and claim 17 are independent claims in the claims 1-8 and claims 17-20, respectively. Both recite, “A computer-readable device comprising non-transitory instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:”. All claims 1-8 and claims 17-20 are all directed to the scope of “operations”. They are merely of “computer-readable code” given with recitations in the dependencies, claims 2-8, and 18-20, respectively.
The recitations of “A computer-readable device comprising non-transitory instructions, which, when executed by a processor”, appear being intended to the operations only. Therefore, the “operations” are the instructions of computer programs. The scopes of claims 1-8 and claims 17-20 encompass computer program per se. Therefore, the claims fail to meet statutory requirement under 35 USC 101.
To make the claims to be statutory requirement, and the scope of the claims falls in one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, it would be suggest the preamble of claim 1 and claim 17 amended into “A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:” and the dependent claims must bear the same scope of the dependent claims. E.g. Dependent claim should recite “The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1…”, etc.
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 1-2, 4-8, 9-10, 12-16, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonathan Lefebvre, “How to setup Telemetry Dashboard for Office 2016”, 2023, System Center Dudes, Retrieve from
https://www.systemcenterdudes.com/how-to-setup-telemetry-dashboard-for-office-2016/, 24 pages in view of Burman et al., US Pat. US 10,929,107 B2.
As per Claim 1: Lefebvre discloses the limitations in bold below:
1. A computer-readable device comprising non-transitory instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
generating a first graphical user interface (In p.2, ‘Microsoft Office 2016 Tools’) for enabling a user to configure a telemetry data management software agent (in p. 2: ‘Telemetry Agent’) for monitoring telemetry (‘Telemetry dashboard’) in a network, [the first graphical user interface being one of low-code and no-code];
(See in p. 7, the Figures. With top figure, it show Click on “Telemetry Dashboard for Office”, pointed by an arrow. The Figures are GUIs and low-code and no-code. The chart in the bottom figure shows figuring the ‘Telemetry agent’ to imply ‘Telemetry Dashboard’).
However,
Lefebvre does not explicitly show the GUI “being one of low-code and no-code”.
Regarding, Lefebvre further discloses,
receiving telemetry data management software agent configuration information via the user's interaction with the first graphical user interface;
(In p. 7, the information shown in Figures allows user’s interaction with the arrows pointed in the Figures)
converting the telemetry data management software agent configuration information into configuration [computer code] for configuring a telemetry data management software agent in accordance with the telemetry data management software agent configuration information;
(In p. 2, referred to all five dots/components and “The first 4 components are considered Server-side, while the Telemetry Agent is the client-side”
Figure in p. 3, with TechNet’s scenarios, it shows clients/user uses Telemetry Agent to open share folder operated with Telemetry processor ‘shared folder and telemetry processor pair’ to send data into Database. In the top lines in p. 4 “Most scenarios will simply require a single server that can host both the Telemetry Processor and the database” . Thus, the scenarios in p. 3, it acts with the used click on the GUIs to opens shared folder and telemetry processor to create data and send the data to Telemetry database.
Figures in p.6 to 8 with Getting started, which is received by user’s interaction in the Figures in p. 7 for selecting data.
And further in p. 9: items 1 and 2 in low Figure that describe the data:
1. A SQL server database that stores Office solution inventory and issue information used by Office
Telemetry Dashboard.
2. A shared folder that stores data collected from client computers.
In this manner ‘Data’ in Shared folder and Telemetry Processor is “configuration data” which is converted form selections of features provided in the Figures,
Lefebvre does not explicitly show the selected feature the GUIs convert in to “computer code”.
storing the configuration [computer code];
(See in p. 3, Referred TechNet scenarios where Data in Shared folder and Telemetry processor pair to the end compute, or the four dots with “client sends .. data” , and data to Telemetry database. However, in the scenarios 1 and 2 in p. 3 the end computer storing the data read on the data)
generating a second graphical user interface for enabling the user to identity at least one telemetry management agent in the network to which the configuration [computer code] is to be deployed;
(See in p. 13, “Configure Telemetry Database”, and the low figure, the Telemetry Dashboard ‘a second graphical user interface’ it shows Configure Telemeter Agent , and an arrow pointed to “Connect to Database”, and in p. 14, the top figure with “Data connecting setting”)
storing data indicating the at least one telemetry management agent to which the configuration [computer code] is to be deployed; and
(In p. 14, Once the user select Connect in the top Figure, it will provides “queries” in the left panel , it will deploy data in the local SQL to SQL database according to the top Figure in p. 14 )
transmitting the configuration [computer code] to a network endpoint that included the at least one telemetry management agent.
(in p. 14, and low Figure, it shows document/code is stored with “Office deployment trend” [The Figure shows empty because the deployment has not been processed] )
Lefebvre does not explicitly mention the “GUI “graphical user interface being one of low-code and no-code”, and with the selection on the GUI, it converts into “the code”, but transmits configuration data.
Burman discloses “graphical user interface being one of low-code and no-code” (See in column 17, lines 59-67, “…The tool may utilize a GUI, and may be embodied
as a series of one or more web pages and/or web-based
applications deployed upon the computational instance.
Once completed and released, employees of the managed
network may make use of the workflow to carry out various
tasks in an organized and efficient fashion. Notably, the
workflow design tool can be a so-called "low-code/no-code"”), and Burman discloses using selected features to convert into “computer code” (Column 24: within lines 48-65:
“The user need not write any code and also need
not be conversant in the remote service API. Instead, the user
can specify, through menu options of a GUI, structured data
obtained from the remote service API and how to use it.
Example GUIs that support the workflow design phase are
65 shown in FIGS. 6A-6K and l0A-l0C.”
Thus, In Burman, with the ‘low-code/no-code’ GUI and with selections of features on the GUI as the GUI’s agents, the selections will convert the selections into desired computer code.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing of the application to combine the teaching of Lefebvre using GUI to provide user’s interaction with visual features for converting in to configure data used for Telemetry data ‘Office 2016’ with the no-code or low-code GUI used for converting the GUI feature selection into computer code of Burman. The combination would yield predictable results because low-code or no-code GUI is a popular alternative to traditional software development, where non-professional developers can use a low-code approach to create apps of varying complexity quickly and easily, and thus it would be necessary for developers to provides such GUIs in a shared application network.
As per Claim 2: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre discloses the limitations in bold below:
2. The computer-readable code of claim 1 wherein the transmitting the configuration [computer code] comprises receiving from a network endpoint (See in p. 3, TechNet’ scenarios show the Telemetry database receiving configuring data from other servers) a query for any new configuration [computer code] for any telemetry management agent located at that network endpoint (P. 14, the low figure, a connected dashboard, it has input queries using selective dropdowns to specify the data/documents transferring), wherein the transmitting the configuration [computer code] is performed responsive to receiving of the query (The TechNet’ scenarios in p. 3 and the selective dropdown queries in the Figure in p. 14 ).
Lefebvre does not explicitly disclose transmitting “computer code”, but rather transmitting Configuring Data.
Burman further discloses “computer code” (See in abstract and with analysis in claim 1 for “computer code”). Burman in claim using low-code/no-code GUI with queries defied as metadata in GUI allowing the computer code be transmitted for designing applications.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing of the application to combine the teaching of Lefebvre using GUI to provide user’s interaction with visual features as input queries for converting and transferring configure data used for Telemetry data ‘Office 2016’, with the GUI selections by queries for computer code of Burman. The combination would yield predictable results because GUI is a popular alternative to traditional software development, where non-professional developers can use a low-code approach to with queries used for transferring remote code for apps quickly and easily, and thus it would be necessary for developers to provides such GUIs in a shared application network to help non-professional developers.
As per Claim 4: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
4. The computer-readable code of claim 1 wherein the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises instructions to store telemetry data at the endpoint and instructions when to transmit the stored telemetry data.
(See in p. 3, TechNet’ scenarios show the data stored at end server, Telemetry database receiving configuring data from other servers. See in p. 11 with low figure, using path to store data)
As per Claim 5: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
5. The computer-readable code of claim 1 wherein the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises instructions to conduct synthetic user testing.
(See in pages 20-21, started with “For testing only” and the Figure in p. 21 with “Results”, using feature “Solutions”. It appears “Solution” being self-test selected by User using configuring features in dashboard, and this user test shows results within columns such as success%, critical, informative, load time, etc., for each of solution name.
Note: The specification broadly mentions “synthetic user testing” on in [00072] “resource intensive
operations such as turning on a profiler or conducting synthetic user testing”.
Without descriptions for “synthetic user testing”, the test shown as in p. 20-21 meets “synthetic user testing” of the claim.)
As per Claim 6: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
6. The computer-readable code of claim 1 wherein the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises instructions to turn on a profiler.
(See in p. 16, The Figure with User Configuration for the Telemetry Dashboard, in the right panel, it shows the folder of Telemetry Dashboard with setting and state columns, it shows “Turn on…”, and in p. 18 “. Edit Turn on Telemetry data collection” .
Note: The specification broadly mentions “profile” on in [00072] “resource intensive
operations such as turning on a profiler or conducting synthetic user testing”.
Without descriptions for “profile”; “Turn on..” in the setting of the reference meets “instructions to turn on a profiler”.)
As per Claim 7: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
7. The computer-readable code of claim 1 wherein the operations further comprise:
validating the telemetry data management software agent configuration information input by the user.
(See in pages 20-21, started with “For testing only” and the Figure in p. 21 with “Results”, using feature “Solution”. In the “Solutions”, it shows results within columns such as success%, critical, informative, load time, etc., for each of solution names, . The result such as success%:100%, 0 Critical:0, Informative:0 is a process of test validation. It should be noted that Solution names are document or data from users to provide.)
As per Claim 8: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
8. The computer-readable code of claim 7 wherein the operation of validating the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises confirming that all data entered by the user conforms to expected data types.
(See in pages 20-21, started with “For testing only” and the Figure in p. 21 with “Results”, using feature “Solution”. In the “Solutions”, it shows results within columns such as success%, critical, informative, load time, etc., for all of solution names. The result such as success%:100%, 0 Critical:0, Informative:0 for the type of applications such as Word, Excel, etc., is a process of test validation is for confirmation to the data type .)
As per claims 9-10, 12-16: The Claims are directed to a method and recite the limitations having functionality corresponding to the scope of Claims 1-2, 4-8 above. The Claims are rejected with the same rationales addressed in Claims 1-2, 4-8.
As per Claim 17: Lefebvre discloses the limitations in bold below:
17. A computer-readable device comprising non-transitory instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a query for any new configuration [computer code] for a telemetry management agent;
(See in the Figure, scenarios given from TechNet, in p. 2, the user with Share folder and Telemetry processor send data to Telemetry database. The data is such as queries in the low Figure in p. 14. [The Figure in p. 14 show the empty box of Query with drop-down selections]
receiving, responsive to the query, a configuration file for reconfiguring the telemetry management agent; and
(The Figure, scenarios given from TechNet, in p. 2, and Figures within Configure Telemetry Database, from p. 13 to p. 16. The function of Dashboard in Configure Telemetry Database, performed through the pages 13-16 is the function of a configuration that provides reconfiguring based on the user selection with query inputs )
and
reconfiguring the telemetry management agent in accordance with the received configuration file.
(The Figure, scenarios given from TechNet, in p. 2, and Figures in Configure Telemetry Database)
Lefebvre does not explicitly mention with the query, it is for transmitting “the code”, but for ‘configuration data’ collected and converted through the queries in the GUI by user’s selections and interactions.
Burman discloses with selected features as input queries it is for transmitting “computer code” (Column 24: within lines 48-65:
“The user need not write any code and also need not be conversant in the remote service API. Instead, the user can specify, through menu options of a GUI, structured data obtained from the remote service API and how to use it. Example GUIs that support the workflow design phase are 65 shown in FIGS. 6A-6K and l0A-l0C.”
And through claim 1: in column 34, lines 22-32:
“…for display on a set of integration action design GUIs, options that allow a specification of an integration action involving the remote service, wherein the integration action defines a structured data query to the remote service API of the remote service that provides access to the structured data and an indication that the metadata action is to be used to represent a result of the structured data query…”
Thus, In Burman, with the ‘low-code/no-code’ GUI and with selections of features on the GUI as the GUI’s agents, the selections will transfer queries for computer code as API from remote service.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing of the application to combine the teaching of Lefebvre using GUI to provide user’s interaction with visual features as input queries for converting and transferring configure data used for Telemetry data ‘Office 2016’ with the GUI selections of features for computer code of Burman. The combination would yield predictable results because GUI is a popular alternative to traditional software development, where non-professional developers can use a low-code approach to with queries used for transferring remote code for apps quickly and easily, and thus it would be necessary for developers to provides such GUIs in a shared application network to help non-professional developers.
As per Claim 19: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
19. The computer-readable code of claim 17 wherein the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises instructions to store telemetry data at the endpoint and instructions when to transmit the stored telemetry data.
(See in p. 3, TechNet’ scenarios show the data stored at end server, Telemetry database receiving configuring data from other servers. See in p. 11 with low figure, using path to store data)
As per Claim 20: Lefebvre and combining Burman, where
Lefebvre further discloses,
20. The computer-readable code of claim 17 wherein the telemetry data management software agent configuration information comprises instructions to conduct synthetic user testing.
(See in pages 20-21, started with “For testing only” and the Figure in p. 21 with “Results”, using feature “Solutions”. It appears “Solution” being self-test selected by User using configuring features in dashboard, and this user test shows results within columns such as success%, critical, informative, load time, etc., for each of solution name.
Note: The specification broadly mentions “synthetic user testing” on in [00072] “resource intensive
operations such as turning on a profiler or conducting synthetic user testing”.
Without descriptions for “synthetic user testing”, the test shown as in p. 20-21 meets “synthetic user testing” of the claim.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 19 are rejected under 35 USC 101, addressed above. In the allowable subject, Claims 3, 19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, provided with resolving the rejection of 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ted T Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3706. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm ET.
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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
TTV
March 6, 2026
/Ted T. Vo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191