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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-7 and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/8/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0270977 A1 (hereinafter Nucci) in view of U.S. Patent 9,753,615 B1 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to: generate a graphical user interface comprising a virtual canvas on which shapes representing components of an integration process are dragged and dropped to construct the integration process” is taught by Nucci (Nucci, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 17-73, discloses a system with a web based interface for visually modeling an integration process. Nucci, e.g. paragraphs 17, 18, 33-45, figure 5, teaches that the system allows a user to construct the model of an integration process by using a drag and drop interface to connect different icons representing components of the model/integration process, i.e. the claimed graphical user interface. It is additionally noted with respect to claims 19 and 20, Nucci, e.g. paragraphs 70-73, teaches that the system can be implemented by processors executing software stored on non-transitory computer readable media.)
The limitation “apply a performance model to integration data, defining the components of integration process, to generate performance data, wherein the performance data comprise one or more performance metrics for each component of the integration process” is taught by Nucci (Nucci, e.g. paragraphs 62-64, teaches that subsequent to executing the modeled integration process, the results of the executed processes are reported to the user via a web browser interface, including performance metrics such as status of execution, number of documents processes, processing time, etc. That is, as claimed, Nucci’s system generates performance data by applying a performance model to the components of the integration process, with the output data comprising one or more metrics for each component.)
The limitations “generate a heatmap comprising a color map, wherein the color map is generated by, for each component of the integration process, mapping at least one value of the one or more performance metrics for that component to at least one color value within a color spectrum, and adding the at least one color value to the color map at a position that corresponds to the shape, representing that component, on the virtual canvas; and display the heatmap as an overlay over the shapes on the virtual canvas in the graphical user interface” are not explicitly taught by Nucci (While Nucci, e.g. paragraph 64, teaches that the results data is used for reporting errors for support or troubleshooting, Nucci does not suggest any particular form for the results, i.e. using the claimed heatmap or otherwise.) However, this limitation is taught by Zhang (Zhang, e.g. abstract, cols 1-14, describes an interactive heat map display for graphically representing performance metrics of system models. Zhang, e.g. col 1, lines 32-45, col 2, line 31 – col 4, line 29, figures 5A, 6A, 7A, teaches that the model includes entities with relationships, with the entities represented as blocks connected by lines, and the entities/blocks corresponding to different portions of the functionality used in the model, i.e. analogous to both the claim limitations and Nucci’s interface, Zhang’s models are represented on a virtual canvas in a graphical interface, and comprise a plurality of shapes representing components of a functional process. Further, Zhang, e.g. col 1, line 46 – col 2, line 19, col 6, line 18 – col 8, line 65, teaches that the system executes the model, collects data based on executing the model, and determines various types of performance information, i.e. analogous to both the claim limitations and Nucci’s interface, one or more performance metrics are evaluated for each component of the model. Zhang, e.g. col 2, lines 20-30, col 8, line 66 – col 14, line 49, figures 5C, 6B, 6C, 7B further teaches providing visual representations of the performance information in the form of a heat map overlaid/superimposed onto the graphical representation of the model, wherein each block is colored using a color value selected from a spectrum based on the performance metric value determined for the entity represented by the block, e.g. col 9, lines 14-37, col 11, line 45 – col 12, line 34, col 13, lines 27-64, i.e. as claimed, the heatmap is displayed as an overlay over the shapes on the virtual canvas, wherein the heatmap comprises a color map generated by adding a color to the color map at each shape’s component determined by mapping a value of the performance metrics for that component to a color value within a color spectrum.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nucci’s graphical integration process modeling system to include Zhang’s heatmap overlay feature in order to allow a user to view the performance information using a heatmap, i.e. as noted above Nucci teaches that the results data is used for reporting errors for support or troubleshooting, but does not suggest any particular form for the results, and in addition to Zhang teaching the use of heatmaps for the same purpose, i.e. informing a user of the performance of each model component for determining where improvement or correction may be required, one of ordinary skill in the art would generally be aware of the benefit of heatmaps providing an easy to interpret spatial mapping of a metric value, i.e. easily identifying “hot” and/or “cool” regions. Nucci’s modified system would operate as disclosed, with the exception of supporting activation of Zhang’s heatmap overlay in response to user input, e.g. Zhang, col 9, lines 6-10.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the heatmap is displayed in response to a user selection of an input within the graphical user interface” is taught by Nucci in view of Zhang (As noted in the claim 1 rejection above, Nucci’s modified system would operate as disclosed, with the exception of supporting activation of Zhang’s heatmap overlay in response to user input, e.g. Zhang, col 9, lines 6-10.)
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “further comprising using the at least one hardware processor to remove the heatmap from the graphical user interface in response to a subsequent user selection of the input” is implicitly taught by Nucci in view of Zhang (As noted in the claim 2 rejection above, Zhang, col 9, lines 6-10 teaches that the heatmap may be displayed in response to user input. While not explicitly stated by Zhang, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it implicit that the system would accept further user input to end display of the heatmap, i.e. the heatmap is not intended to be permanently displayed, but viewed by the user temporarily for informing model improvements/corrections subsequently performed by the user, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the system would be implemented to accept user input to end display of the heatmap.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Nucci’s graphical integration process modeling system, including Zhang’s heatmap overlay feature, to allow the user to provide input to end display of the heatmap, i.e. as noted above one of ordinary skill in the art would have found this implicit because Zhang’s heatmap overlay is intended to be displayed temporarily in response to user input.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the one or more performance metrics comprise one or more of a number of errors, a severity of errors, a data throughput, a bandwidth utilization, a data volume, or a processing time” is taught by Nucci in view of Zhang (Nucci, e.g. paragraph 64, teaches measuring how many documents were processed, i.e. data throughput, and processing time. Zhang, e.g. col 7, line 33 – col 8, line 7, teaches measuring a number of errors, data throughput, and processing time.)
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0270977 A1 (hereinafter Nucci) in view of U.S. Patent 9,753,615 B1 (hereinafter Zhang) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0228899 A1 (hereinafter Witriol).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the one or more performance metrics are a plurality of performance metrics” is taught by Nucci and Zhang (As noted in the claim 8 rejection above, Nucci, e.g. paragraph 64, Zhang, cols 7-8, teach a plurality of performance metrics.)
The limitations “wherein the plurality of performance metrics are divided into a plurality of layers, wherein the graphical user interface comprises one or more inputs for toggling on and off each of the plurality of layers, and wherein the heatmap represents all of the plurality of layers that are toggled on” are not explicitly taught by Nucci in view of Zhang (While Zhang, e.g. col 11, line 32 – col 12, line 33, figures 5A-5C, teaches that the heatmap may represent different performance metrics for the same model elements, the heatmaps for each performance metric are separately displayed, i.e. Zhang does not address the heatmap overlay being generated using one or more of a plurality of heatmap layers corresponding to the respective plurality of metrics which are individually toggled on by the user.) However, this limitation is taught by Witriol (Witriol, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 21-104, describes a system for presenting heatmap overlays allowing for user customization of the heatmap display parameters. Witriol, e.g. paragraphs 29-33, teaches that the display includes a background image and a heatmap overlay generated by mapping a dataset value to a color value using a value-color spectrum, analogous to Zhang’s heatmap overlays. Further, Witriol, e.g. paragraphs 36, 40-43, figures 2A, 2B, 3, teaches that the user may prepare a plurality of heatmap layers that can be displayed simultaneously, i.e. as in paragraph 42 the layers have an ordering configuration which would not be required if only one heatmap layer were superimposed at a time, and can be toggled on and off individually, i.e. as in sub-window 240 of figures 2A and 2B, each layer has a checkbox controlling whether it is displayed, i.e. as claimed, the datasets are divided into a plurality of layers, and the interface comprises inputs for toggling on and off each of the plurality of layers, wherein the heatmap represents all of the plurality of layers that are toggled on. Finally, while not required to meet the limitations of claim 9, in the interest of simplifying the combination and mapping, it is noted that Witriol, e.g. paragraphs 31, 36, 43, 76, discussed in further detail in the claim 10 rejection below, additionally teaches details of adjusting the level of detail of the heatmap rendering, i.e. different levels of zoom and/or resolution, such that the modification to use Witriol’s user customized heatmap displays includes both the selective display of one of more heatmap layers as required in claim 9, and the transition between zoom/resolution levels as required in claims 10-11.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nucci’s graphical integration process modeling system, including Zhang’s heatmap overlay feature, to use Witriol’s user customized heatmap displays for rendering Zhang’s performance information heatmaps with the additional features supported by Witriol’s system, e.g. user generation of plural layers, selective display of plural layers simultaneously, resolution control, color spectrum control, etc. As noted above, Nucci’s modified system including Zhang’s heatmap overlay feature using Witriol’s user customized heatmap displays for rendering includes both the selective display of one of more heatmap layers as required in claim 9, and the transition between zoom/resolution levels as required in claims 10-11. That is, analogous to Witriol’s set of checkboxes for different heatmap layers in figures 2A, 2B, Zhang’s example of figures 5A, 5B, 5C, would correspond to generating two heatmap layers, toggled individually using the check boxes, and displayed simultaneously when both are toggled on, corresponding to the claimed heatmap representing all of the plurality of layers that are toggled on.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “wherein the graphical user interface is configured to zoom in to the virtual canvas in response to a first user operation and zoom out of the virtual canvas in response to a second user operation; wherein the heatmap comprises a plurality of levels, including a first resolution and a second resolution, and wherein the method further comprises using the at least one hardware processor to: when zooming in to the virtual canvas, transition from the first resolution to the second resolution; and when zooming out of the virtual canvas, transition from the second resolution to the first resolution” are taught by Nucci in view of Zhang and Witriol (As noted in the claim 9 rejection above, Witriol, e.g. paragraphs 31, 36, 43, 76, additionally teaches details of adjusting the level of detail of the heatmap rendering, i.e. different levels of zoom and/or resolution, such that the modification to use Witriol’s user customized heatmap displays includes both the selective display of one of more heatmap layers as required in claim 9, and the transition between zoom/resolution levels as required in claims 10-11. That is, as in paragraphs 31, 36, Witriol teaches that the user has zoom controls 250 allowing the user to zoom in or zoom out in response to first/second user operations. Further, Witriol, e.g. paragraphs 31, 43, 76, teaches that the layer scale may or may not be locked to the zoom level, wherein when the layer scale is not locked, each resolution stored in the mipmap will be a zoomed version of the visualization sized according to the region, i.e. as in paragraph 31 this may include regrouping the data to different levels of aggregation such as per-county, per-state, or per-country. That is, when the layer scale is not locked to the zoom level, as claimed, the heatmap layer(s) would comprise a plurality of zoom levels corresponding to different resolutions, where zooming in/out would respectively transition to/from a first level/resolution from/to a second level/resolution, as claimed.)
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein one of the plurality of levels, representing a lowest resolution, consists of the color map” is taught by Nucci in view of Zhang and Witriol (Zhang, e.g. figures 5A, 5C, 6A, 6B, 6C, teaches that the heatmap overlay may consist of the only the color map, i.e. the block labels are present prior to superimposing the heatmap overlay, whereas Zhang, e.g. figure 7B, shows an example in which the performance information is superimposed on the corresponding block in the model hierarchy diagram. Further, Witriol does not teach or suggest that the heatmap overlays include anything other than the generated color map for each layer, such that regardless of the number of layers toggled on, the lowest zoom/resolution level would consist of the color map. That is, in at least some instances of Nucci’s modified system as in the claim 9 rejection, the lowest zoom/resolution level would only be a color map as in Zhang’s figure 5 and 6 examples, and Witriol’s unmodified system.)
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0270977 A1 (hereinafter Nucci) in view of U.S. Patent 9,753,615 B1 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0228899 A1 (hereinafter Witriol) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0039433 A1 (hereinafter McGreevy).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “wherein at least one of the plurality of levels, other than the one of the plurality of levels representing the lowest resolution, comprises the color map overlaid with one or more indicators, and wherein each of the one or more indicators provides information about a performance of an area of the integration process and is overlaid over the color map at a position that corresponds to that area” are partially taught by Nucci in view of Zhang and Witriol (As discussed in the claim 11 rejection above, in at least some instances of Nucci’s modified system as in the claim 9 rejection, the lowest zoom/resolution level would only be a color map as in Zhang’s figure 5 and 6 examples, and Witriol’s unmodified system. Further, Zhang, e.g. figure 7B, shows an example in which the performance information is superimposed on the corresponding block in the model hierarchy diagram, i.e. the claimed indicators providing information about performance of an area of the model/integration process, and overlaid over the color map at a position corresponding to that rea. While Zhang anticipates heatmap overlays both with and without the claimed indicators, Zhang does not discuss separate zoom/resolution levels of the heatmap, and Witriol, as previously noted, does not teach or suggest that the heatmap overlays include anything other than the generated color map for each layer, such that although the combination of Zhang’s disclosure and Witriol’s disclosure includes heatmap layers having a plurality of zoom/resolution levels, with each level having or not having the claimed indicators, Zhang and Witriol do not teach or suggest the further requirement that higher zoom/resolution levels have the indicators while the lowest zoom/resolution level only has the color map, i.e. including different amounts of information at different heatmap zoom/resolution levels.) However, this limitation is taught by McGreevy (McGreevy, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 25-52, describes a system for monitoring industrial processes using an overview heatmap display and one or more detail heatmap displays, where the heatmap comprises a plurality of connected shapes having colors determined according to performance data of a corresponding process component, e.g. paragraphs 32-36, and the user interface allows the user to select a portion of the overview heatmap display to bring up a higher level zoom/resolution representation of the selected portion, e.g. paragraphs 32, 39-43, 51, including repeatedly increasing zoom/resolution level through multiple levels of detail heatmaps as in paragraph 51. Further, McGreevy, e.g. paragraphs 32, 39, 42, 51, teaches that the overview and detail heatmaps may include the same information or the detail heatmaps may include additional and/or different information from the overview heatmap, i.e. although as noted above, Zhang and Witriol do not suggest that the higher zoom/resolution levels could include the indicators while the lowest zoom/resolution level only has the color map, McGreevy teaches that the lowest zoom level of a heatmap may have less/different information than the higher zoom/detail levels of the heatmap.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nucci’s graphical integration process modeling system, including Zhang’s heatmap overlay feature, using Witriol’s user customized heatmap displays for rendering Zhang’s performance information heatmaps, to support McGreevy’s heatmap layers with different levels of detail in order to include different amounts of information depending on the level of detail/zoom/resolution the heatmap is being displayed with. In Nucci’s modified system, the heatmap layers would be displayed at a selected zoom/resolution level as taught by Witriol and discussed in the rejections of claims 9-11 above, wherein at the lowest detail/zoom/resolution level the heatmap would correspond to a low detail grouping analogous to per-country as in Witriol paragraph 31, or Zhang’s top hierarchy level, e.g. col 3, lines 23-25, Figure 7B, and the higher detail/zoom/resolution levels of the heatmap would correspond to higher detail grouping, analogous to Witriol’s per-county or per-state groupings, or Zhang’s lower hierarchy levels. As noted above, Zhang discloses examples that only comprise the color map as in figures 5 and 6, and an example that includes the color map with the claimed indicators as in figure 7, such that in Nucci’s modified system supporting McGreevy’s heatmap layers with different levels of detail, the lowest detail/zoom/resolution level of the heatmap could consist solely of the color map, as in Zhang’s figure 5 and 6 examples, and the higher detail/zoom/resolution level(s) of the heatmap could include the superimposed performance information for each block, as in the figure 7 example, thereby corresponding to the claimed arrangement wherein the lowest zoom/resolution level consists of the color map (without the indicators) and at least one of the higher zoom/resolution levels comprises the color map with the claimed indicators.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more indicators comprises a value of at least one of the one or more performance metrics” is taught by Nucci in view of Zhang, Witriol, and McGreevy (As discussed in the claim 12 rejection above, Zhang discloses examples that only comprise the color map as in figures 5 and 6, and an example that includes the color map with the claimed indicators as in figure 7, such that in Nucci’s modified system supporting McGreevy’s heatmap layers with different levels of detail, the lowest detail/zoom/resolution level of the heatmap could consist solely of the color map, as in Zhang’s figure 5 and 6 examples, and the higher detail/zoom/resolution level(s) of the heatmap could include the superimposed performance information for each block, as in the figure 7 example, thereby corresponding to the claimed arrangement wherein the lowest zoom/resolution level consists of the color map (without the indicators) and at least one of the higher zoom/resolution levels comprises the color map with the claimed indicators. That is, as shown in Zhang’s figure 7, the indicators are the values of at least one of the performance metrics.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0270977 A1 (hereinafter Nucci) in view of U.S. Patent 9,753,615 B1 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0228899 A1 (hereinafter Witriol) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0039433 A1 (hereinafter McGreevy) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0075327 A1 (hereinafter Noel).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more indicators comprises a natural-language expression that describes the performance of that area” is not explicitly taught by Nucci in view of Zhang, Witriol and McGreevy (As discussed in the claim 12 rejection above, Zhang discloses examples that only comprise the color map as in figures 5 and 6, and an example that includes the color map with the claimed indicators as in figure 7, such that in Nucci’s modified system supporting McGreevy’s heatmap layers with different levels of detail, the lowest detail/zoom/resolution level of the heatmap could consist solely of the color map, as in Zhang’s figure 5 and 6 examples, and the higher detail/zoom/resolution level(s) of the heatmap could include the superimposed performance information for each block, as in the figure 7 example, thereby corresponding to the claimed arrangement wherein the lowest zoom/resolution level consists of the color map (without the indicators) and at least one of the higher zoom/resolution levels comprises the color map with the claimed indicators. While Zhang’s figure 7 example indicators include the performance information, per se, Zhang does not suggest using a natural-language expression as an alternative indicator. Further, while McGreevy, e.g. paragraphs 32, 39, 42, 51, teaches that the detail heatmaps may include additional and/or different information from the overview heatmap, and McGreevy, e.g. paragraph 38, teaches including additional information indicators such as a dialog box or tool-tip, i.e. elements traditionally containing information for the user in the form of natural-language expressions, McGreevy does not teach selectively including the natural-language indicators in the higher detail/zoom/resolution heatmaps, per se.) However, this limitation is taught by Noel (Noel, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 27-174, describes a system for visualization of machine data received from computing clusters, including displaying cluster data using heatmaps, e.g. paragraphs 37, 43-45, 101, 122-130, and allowing for different visualization analysis lenses to be defined and/or selected for providing different types of visualizations for different purposes, e.g. paragraphs 32, 40, 101, 130. Noel, e.g. paragraphs 105, 115, 116, further teaches that the visualization lenses may provide detailed feedback with information provided to the user either in a detail window or superimposed as a tool-tip when the user interface device hovers over a selected cluster node, i.e. the claimed superimposed indicators providing a natural-language expression describing the performance of the area.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nucci’s graphical integration process modeling system, including Zhang’s heatmap overlay feature, using Witriol’s user customized heatmap displays for rendering Zhang’s performance information heatmaps, supporting McGreevy’s heatmap layers with different levels of detail, to include Noel’s customizable heatmap display feature of selectively including tooltip style information displays for different detail/zoom/resolution levels of the heatmap layers in order to gain the advantages of tooltip style information displays, i.e. as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, tooltip style information displays are advantageous in that information is temporarily displayed in response to the user input device hovering over a relevant location and removed from the display when the user moves the user input device away from the location. As discussed in the claim 12 rejection above, in Nucci’s modified system supporting McGreevy’s heatmap layers with different levels of detail, the higher detail/zoom/resolution level(s) of the heatmap could include the superimposed performance information for each block. In Nucci’s further modified system including Noel’s customizable heatmap display feature of selectively including tooltip style information displays for different detail/zoom/resolution levels of the heatmap layers, the higher detail/zoom/resolution level(s) of the heatmap layer(s) could include tooltip style information displays, where, as noted above, tooltip information displays traditionally contain information for the user in the form of natural-language expressions, i.e. the tooltip style information displays presented when the user is viewing the higher detail/zoom/resolution level(s) of the heatmap layer(s) would correspond to the claimed indicators overlaid over the color map at the position corresponding to the area comprising natural-language expression(s) describing the performance of that area.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0270977 A1 (hereinafter Nucci) in view of U.S. Patent 9,753,615 B1 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0228899 A1 (hereinafter Witriol) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0039433 A1 (hereinafter McGreevy in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0075327 A1 (hereinafter Noel)) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of “Explaining data patterns in natural language with language models” by Chandan Singh, et al. (hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “further comprising using the at least one hardware processor to generate the natural-language expression by: generating a prompt using at least a portion of the performance data; and inputting the prompt to a generative language model to produce the natural-language expression” is not explicitly taught by Nucci in view of Noel (As discussed in the claim 14 rejection above, in Nucci’s modified system including Noel’s customizable heatmap display feature of selectively including tooltip style information displays for different detail/zoom/resolution levels of the heatmap layers, the tooltip style information displays presented when the user is viewing the higher detail/zoom/resolution level(s) of the heatmap layer(s) would correspond to the claimed indicators overlaid over the color map at the position corresponding to the area comprising natural-language expression(s) describing the performance of that area. While one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the tooltip style information displays can include natural language expressions, Noel does not teach any particular technique for generating the content of the tooltip indicator describing the performance data of the corresponding area, i.e. Noel does not exclude any content generation technique, but does not discuss prompt based language models.) However, this limitation is taught by Singh (Singh, e.g. abstract, sections 1, 3-7, describes the iPrompt generative language model, which takes datasets as input to generate prompts to a large language model in order to generate natural-language descriptions of the data. Singh, e.g. abstract, sections 6, 7, further indicates that the system is applicable to a variety of datasets.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nucci’s graphical integration process modeling system, including Zhang’s heatmap overlay feature, using Witriol’s user customized heatmap displays for rendering Zhang’s performance information heatmaps, supporting McGreevy’s heatmap layers with different levels of detail, including Noel’s customizable heatmap display feature of selectively including tooltip style information displays for different detail/zoom/resolution levels of the heatmap layers, to use Singh’s iPrompt system to generate text descriptions for tooltips based on the performance data of the heatmap block being hovered over by the user input device because Noel does not exclude any content generation technique for generating the content of the tooltips, and Singh’s iPrompt system would be able to generate descriptions using the data as input without requiring the user or developer to manually generate the content, i.e. as one of ordinary skill in the art would know, generative language models are often used to automate content generation tasks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611