DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 18/794,591 filed on August 5, 2024. The preliminary amendment filed January 29, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Claims 16-18 are currently amended. New Claims 21-35 are added. Claims 16-35 are pending and are examined.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 121 based on Non-Provisional Application Ser. No. 17/488,845 filed on September 29, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 5, 2024, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
Drawings
Drawings were received on August 5, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 21, the phrase “to cause a status of the issue ticket” recited in lines 3-4 should be “to cause a status of the issue ticket to be changed”;
regarding Claim 22, the term “the first content item” recited in line 2 should be “the second content item”;
regarding Claim 24, the term “an event feed” recited in line 12 should be “the event feed” and the term “second order” recited in line 19 should be “a second order”, respectively; and
regarding Claim 31, the term “the first manner” recited in line 2 should be “the first visual manner” and the term “the second manner” recited in line 4 should be “the second visual manner”, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “in response to receiving a second request to display a second event feed in a second interface of the second system, causing the second event feed to be displayed in the second interface in which the first and second feed items are displayed in a second visual manner different than the first visual manner” in lines 13-16. Paragraph [0032] of the specification states, in part:
“The event feed service may create an event feed based on the event notifications, and provide the event feed to a user across multiple different software systems. For example, if a user is working in a collaborative document system, the event feed may be displayed in the user interface associated with the collaborative document system. If the user is working in an issue tracking system, the event feed may be displayed in the user interface associated with the issue tracking system (emphasis added).”
Continuing, paragraph [0033] of the specification states, in part:
“Further, the event feed may be different depending on the particular software application in which it is being displayed. For example, the event feed may have a different appearance or item order when it is being displayed in an issue tracking system than it would when displayed in a collaborative document system (emphasis added).”
Lastly, paragraph [0124] of the specification states:
“At operation 712, a second request for the event feed may be received from a second software system, and in response to receiving the second request for the event feed, the event feed may be displayed (operation 714) in the second software system in accordance with second event feed settings, which may be different from the first event feed settings. For example, while FIG. 4A illustrates an example of a first software system requesting and displaying the event feed, FIG. 4B illustrates an example of a second software system (e.g., an issue tracking system) requesting and displaying the same event feed. As described above with respect to FIG. 4B, the same event feed is displayed in the GUI of the second software system according to different feed settings than the first software system. For example, the event feed may be displayed in a different feed item order, or a different graphical arrangement of feed items (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 5A-5B), or the like (emphasis added).”
While the as-filed specification and discloses that multiple software systems can request and display the event feed, and that the same event feed may be displayed differently based on the software system in which it is being displayed, there is insufficient written description support for receiving a request to display “a second event feed” and “causing the second event feed to be displayed in the second interface in which the first and second feed items are displayed in a second visual manner different than the first visual manner” as claimed.
Dependent Claims 31-35 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 30 in view of their dependence thereon.
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 16, 18-22, 30, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helvik et al,. Pub. No. US 2015/0249715 A1, hereby “Helvik”, in view of Beechuk et al., Pub. No. US 2020/0226118 A1, hereby “Beechuk”, and in further view of Narayanan et al., Pub. No. US 2011/0214086 A1, hereby “Narayanan”.
Regarding Claim 16, Helvik discloses “A method (Helvik fig. 6 and paragraphs 4 and 58: a method for surfacing information to a user in an information feed) comprising, at an event feed service in communication with... a collaborative document system (Helvik figs. 2 and 4 and paragraphs 21-23, 35 and 45: system architecture 400 for providing an activity stream from information aggregated from sources 205, 210 and 215, wherein first source 205, may be a cloud-based storage storing documents of a collaborative work group):
receiving, from a first content source, a notification of a first event associated with a first content item stored in association with the first content source and associated with a user (Helvik figs. 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 21-23, 45-46 and 58: activity data 405 is retrieved from second source 210, e.g., a social networking site, wherein the activity data is related to the content of the second source 210);
receiving, from a second content source, a notification of a second event associated with a second content item stored in association with the second content source and associated with the user (Helvik figs. 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 21-23, 45-46 and 58: activity data 404 is retrieved from first source 205, e.g., the cloud-based storage storing documents of the collaborative workgroup, wherein the activity data is related to the content of the first source 205);
associating the first event and the second event with an event feed associated with the user (Helvik figs. 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 18, 23-25, 45-47 and 59: information items retrieved from the sources having sufficient interest or relevance to the user are selected for inclusion in information feed 105);
receiving... a first request for the event feed (Helvik figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27 and 60: the user accesses information feed 105 a first time (Step 620), e.g., using feed access application 250, which may be a module of an application associated with the content of second source 210);
in response to receiving the first request for the event feed, causing the event feed to be displayed... (Helvik figs. 2, 5A and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27, 49-51 and 60: a first instance of information feed 105 is displayed in response to the first access (Step 625), e.g., by feed access application 250);
receiving, from the collaborative document system different from the issue tracking system, a second request for the event feed (Helvik figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27 and 61: the user accesses information feed 105 a subsequent time (Step 635) - while not explicitly stated, it is implied that the subsequent access of information feed 105 is made using a different application, e.g., feed access application 260, which may be a module of an application associated with the content of first source 205, i.e., the collaborative document system); and
in response to receiving the second request for the event feed, causing the event feed to be displayed in the collaborative document system in accordance with second event feed settings, the second event feed settings different from the first event feed settings (Helvik figs. 2, 5B and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27, 49-51 and 61: a second instance of information feed 105 is displayed in response to the subsequent access (Step 640) – while not explicitly stated, it is implied that the display of information feed 105 in response to the subsequent access is provided by feed access application 260).”
However, while Helvik discloses that the sources may include local or remote storage associated with content such as documents of a collaborative work group or servers associated with social networking sites (Helvik paragraphs 21-22, 35 and 45), Helvik does not explicitly disclose “at an event feed service in communication with an issue tracking system and a collaborative document system (emphasis added)” and
“receiving, from the issue tracking system, a first request for the event feed;
in response to receiving the first request for the event feed, causing the event feed to be displayed in the issue tracking system in accordance with first event feed settings (emphasis added);” and
in response to receiving the second request for the event feed, causing the event feed to be displayed in the collaborative document system in accordance with second event feed settings, the second event feed settings different from the first event feed settings (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Beechuk discloses techniques for feed-based case management wherein events related to a case associated with a customer are presented as feed items in an information feed (Beechuk figs. 4 and 15 and paragraphs 38-40, 45, 61, 132-139, 349, 359 and 368: database system 416 provides a feed service that displays information feed 1504 comprising feed items relating to a record of a case associated with a customer, such as a record associated with a problem or support request, which is analogous to an issue ticket).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik to retrieve activity data related to customer cases from a case management system and to display the activity as information elements in the information feed as taught by Beechuk because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a social networking site) for another (a case management system) to obtain predictable and desirable results (display of information items relating to customer cases in the information feed). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Helvik discloses accessing and displaying the information feed using different front-end applications associated with the information sources (Helvik paragraphs 4, 20-21, 27 and 60), the combination of Helvik and Beechuk does not explicitly disclose “in response to receiving the first request for the event feed, causing the event feed to be displayed in the issue tracking system in accordance with first event feed settings (emphasis added);” and
“in response to receiving the second request for the event feed, causing the event feed to be displayed in the collaborative document system in accordance with second event feed settings, the second event feed settings different from the first event feed settings (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Narayanan discloses displaying feed data in accordance with parameters and/or preferences, i.e., event feed settings, of the application program in which the feed data is displayed, wherein the parameters and/or preferences can be different for different applications (Narayanan figs. 1-2B and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in a single or multiple columns according to parameters and/or preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik, as modified by Beechuk, to display the information feed in accordance with parameters and/or preferences of the application requesting to display the information feed as taught by Narayanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine displaying the information feed in accordance with parameters and/or preferences of the application requesting to display the information feed to efficiently use available display space (Narayanan paragraphs 4, 20 and 65).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16.
Additionally, Narayanan discloses “the first event feed settings cause the event feed to be displayed... in accordance with a first graphical arrangement of feed items (Narayanan fig. 2A and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in a single column based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data); and
the second event feed settings cause the event feed to be displayed... in accordance with a second graphical arrangement of feed items that is different than the first graphical arrangement of feed items (Narayanan fig. 2B and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in multiple columns based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik, as modified by Beechuk, to display the information feed in accordance with parameters and/or preferences of the application requesting to display the information feed as taught by Narayanan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 18.
Additionally, Narayanan discloses wherein “the first graphical arrangement of feed items includes a single column of feed items (Narayanan fig. 2A and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in a single column based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data); and
the second graphical arrangement of feed items includes multiple columns of feed items (Narayanan fig. 2B and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in multiple columns based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik, as modified by Beechuk, to display the information feed in accordance with parameters and/or preferences of the application requesting to display the information feed as taught by Narayanan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16.
Additionally, Helvik discloses “wherein the event feed comprises:
a first feed item (Helvik fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-19: information item 110) including:
at least a portion of the first content item (Helvik fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 48: as shown in Figure 1, information item 110 comprises at least a portion of a document corresponding to the information item);” and
a second feed item including:
at least a portion of the second content item (Helvik fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 48: as shown in Figure 1, information item 115 comprises at least a portion of a document corresponding to the information item)”.
However, while Helvik discloses that the information elements displayed in the information feed comprise at least a portion of the content associated with the information element (Helvik fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 48), Helvik does not explicitly disclose a first feed item including “a first actionable input object configured to cause a change to the first content item based on a first user input received at the first actionable input object” and a second feed item including “a second actionable input object configured to cause a change to the second content item based on a second user input received at the second actionable input object”.
In the same field of endeavor, Beechuk discloses that a feed item may include one or more actionable selections configured to interact with the record associated with the feed item (Beechuk figs. 15 and 20 and paragraphs 50-51, 61, 66, 169, 349 and 359-368: a feed item presented in information feed 1504 may include one or more actionable selections, e.g., actionable buttons, which may be used to modify or update a record associated with the case).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik to include one or more actionable selections in the information items displayed in the information feed as taught by Beechuk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine including one or more actionable selections in the information items displayed in the information feed to enable the viewing user to take appropriate further actions (Beechuk paragraph 66).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 20.
Additionally, Beechuk discloses “the first content item is an issue ticket hosted by the issue tracking system (Beechuk figs. 15 and 20 and paragraphs 349 and 359-363: information associated with the case, such as a problem report, is received); and
the first actionable input object is configured to cause a status of the issue ticket on the issue tracking system (Beechuk figs. 18 and 20 and paragraphs 356, 365 and 368: the feed item created in response to receiving the problem report may include an actionable selection, i.e., change status button 1806, that enables the user to change the status of the case).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik to include one or more actionable selections in the information items displayed in the information feed as taught by Beechuk for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 20.
Additionally, Helvik discloses wherein “the first content item is a user-generated document hosted by the collaborative document system (Helvik figs. 2 and 4 and paragraphs 21-24, 35 and 45-46: content of first source 205 may comprise documents created by one user and edited by another user)”.
Additionally, Beechuk discloses that the actionable selection included in a feed item displayed in the information feed may include a log call action that enables the user to create a text transcript or summery of a call that is attached as a child object of the record corresponding to the feed item (Beechuk fig. 17 and paragraphs 355 and 359-365: log call button 1704).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik to include one or more actionable selections in the information items displayed in the information feed as taught by Beechuk for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 30, Helvik discloses “A computer-implemented method (Helvik figs. 6 and 9 and paragraphs 4, 58, and 81: a method, implemented by server 130, for surfacing information to a user in an information feed) comprising:
receiving, from an... system, a notification of a first event associated with a first content item managed by the... system (Helvik figs. 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 21-23, 45-46 and 58: activity data 405 is retrieved from second source 210, e.g., a social networking site, wherein the activity data is related to the content of the second source 210);
generating a first feed item based on the first event and including content extracted from the first content item (Helvik figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 18, 23-25, 46-48 and 59: a first information item, e.g., information item 110, is generated and placed in information feed 105 based on activity data 405 retrieved from second source 210);
receiving, from a second system different than the... system, a notification of a second event associated with a second content item managed by the second system (Helvik figs. 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 21-23, 45-46 and 58: activity data 404 is retrieved from first source 205, e.g., a cloud-based storage storing documents of a collaborative work group, wherein the activity data is related to the content of the first source 205);
generating a second feed item based on the second event and including content extracted from the second content item (Helvik figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 18, 23-25, 46-48 and 59: a second information item, e.g., information item 115, is generated and placed in information feed 105 based on activity data 404 retrieved from first source 205);
in response to receiving a first request to display a first event feed in a first interface of the issue tracking system, causing the first event feed to be displayed in the first interface... (Helvik figs. 2, 5A and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27, 51 and 60: a first instance of information feed 105 is displayed (Step 625) in response to the user accessing information feed 105 a first time (Step 620), e.g., using feed access application 260, which may be a module of an application associated with the content of second source 210); and
in response to receiving a second request to display a second event feed in a second interface of the second system, causing the second event feed to be displayed in the second interface... (Helvik figs. 2, 5B and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27, 51 and 61: a second instance of information feed 105 is displayed (Step 640) in response to the user accessing information feed 105 a subsequent time (Step 635) - while not explicitly stated, it is implied that the subsequent accessing and displaying of information feed 105 are made using a different feed access application, e.g., feed access application 250, which may be module of an application associated with the content of the first source 205).”
However, while Helvik discloses that the sources may include local or remote storage associated with content such as documents of a collaborative work group or servers associated with social networking sites (Helvik paragraphs 21-22, 35 and 45), Helvik does not explicitly disclose “receiving, from an issue tracking system, a notification of a first event associated with a first content item managed by the issue tracking system (emphasis added);” and
“in response to receiving a first request to display a first event feed in a first interface of the issue tracking system, causing the first event feed to be displayed in the first interface in which the first and second feed items are displayed in a first visual manner (emphasis added); and
in response to receiving a second request to display a second event feed in a second interface of the second system, causing the second event feed to be displayed in the second interface in which the first and second feed items are displayed in a second visual manner different than the first visual manner (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Beechuk discloses techniques for feed-based case management wherein events related to a case associated with a customer are presented as feed items in an information feed (Beechuk figs. 4 and 15 and paragraphs 38-40, 45, 61, 132-139, 349, 359 and 368: database system 416 provides a feed service that displays information feed 1504 comprising feed items relating to a record of a case associated with a customer, such as a record associated with a problem or support request, which is analogous to an issue ticket).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik to retrieve activity data related to customer cases from a case management system and to display the activity as information elements in the information feed as taught by Beechuk because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a social networking site) for another (a case management system) to obtain predictable and desirable results (display of information items relating to customer cases in the information feed). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Helvik discloses accessing and displaying the information feed using different front-end applications associated with the information sources (Helvik paragraphs 4, 20-21, 27 and 60), the combination of Helvik and Beechuk does not explicitly disclose “in response to receiving a first request to display a first event feed in a first interface of the issue tracking system, causing the first event feed to be displayed in the first interface in which the first and second feed items are displayed in a first visual manner (emphasis added);” and
“in response to receiving a second request to display a second event feed in a second interface of the second system, causing the second event feed to be displayed in the second interface in which the first and second feed items are displayed in a second visual manner different than the first visual manner (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Narayanan discloses displaying feed data in a single or multiple columns in accordance with parameters and/or preferences, i.e., event feed settings, of the application program in which the feed data is displayed, wherein the parameters and/or preferences can be different for different applications (Narayanan figs. 1-2B and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in a single or multiple columns according to parameters and/or preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik, as modified by Sukumaran, to display the information items of the information feed in a single column or multiple columns based on the preferences of the feed access application displaying the information feed as taught by Narayanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine displaying the information items of the information feed in a single column or multiple columns based on the preferences of the feed access application displaying the information feed (Narayanan paragraphs 4, 20 and 65).
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 30.
Additionally, Narayanan discloses “the first manner is determined, at least in part, by first feed settings managed by the... system (Narayanan fig. 2A and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in a single column based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data); and
the second manner is determined, at least in part, by second feed settings managed by the second system (Narayanan fig. 2B and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in multiple columns based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik, as modified by Sukumaran, to display the information items of the information feed in a single column or multiple columns based on the preferences of the feed access application displaying the information feed as taught by Narayanan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 30.
Additionally, Beechuk discloses “the first feed item includes a first actionable input object configured to cause a change to the first content item based on a first user input received at the first actionable input object (Beechuk figs. 15 and 20 and paragraphs 50-51, 61, 66, 169, 349 and 359-368: a first feed item presented in information feed 1504, e.g., feed item 1508, may include one or more actionable selections, e.g., actionable buttons, which may be used to modify or update a record associated with the case); and
the second feed item includes a second actionable input object configured to cause a change to the second content item based on a second user input received at the second actionable input object (Beechuk figs. 15 and 20 and paragraphs 50-51, 61, 66, 349 and 359-368: a second feed item presented in information feed 1504, e.g., feed item 1510, may include one or more actionable selections, e.g., actionable buttons, which may be used to modify or update a record associated with the case).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik to include one or more actionable selections in the information items displayed in the information feed as taught by Beechuk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine including one or more actionable selections in the information items displayed in the information feed to enable the viewing user to take appropriate further actions (Beechuk paragraph 66).
Claims 17 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan in view of Sukumaran et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0276911 A1, hereby “Sukumaran”.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16.
However, while Narayanan discloses displaying feed data in a single or multiple columns based on the parameters and/or preferences of the application displaying the feed data (Narayanan paragraphs 19, 22, 26 and 36-37), the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan does not explicitly disclose “the first event feed settings cause the event feed to be displayed in the issue tracking system in accordance with a first feed item order; and
the second event feed settings cause the event feed to be displayed in the collaborative document system in accordance with a second feed item order that is different than the first feed item order.”
In the same field of endeavor, Sukumaran discloses that the order in which notifications are displayed in activity feed is based on preference settings provided to the application displaying the event feed (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104: “At a step 120 of the routine 114, the client device 202 may be caused, based at least in part on the preference indicated by the data (e.g., the notification type preference settings 112), to present the first notification 546 earlier than the second notification 546 in an activity feed 544 generated by the application ( e.g., the resource access application 522).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik, as modified by Beechuk and Narayanan, to display the information items in a particular order based on the parameters and/or preferences as taught by Sukumaran because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (preferences indicating a display order) for another (preferences indicating a display arrangement) to obtain predictable and desirable results (display of information items from a particular order based on the parameters and/or preferences of the application displaying the information feed ). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 31 the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 30.
However, while Narayanan discloses displaying feed data in a single or multiple columns based on the parameters and/or preferences of the application displaying the feed data (Narayanan paragraphs 19, 22, 26 and 36-37), the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan does not explicitly disclose “the first manner includes displaying the first and second feed items in a first order in the first interface of the issue tracking system; and
the second manner includes displaying the first and second feed items in a second order in the second interface of the second system, the second order different than the first order.”
In the same field of endeavor, Sukumaran discloses that the order in which notifications are displayed in activity feed is based on preference settings provided to the application displaying the event feed (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104: “At a step 120 of the routine 114, the client device 202 may be caused, based at least in part on the preference indicated by the data (e.g., the notification type preference settings 112), to present the first notification 546 earlier than the second notification 546 in an activity feed 544 generated by the application ( e.g., the resource access application 522).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik, as modified by Beechuk and Narayanan, to display the information items in a particular order based on the parameters and/or preferences as taught by Sukumaran because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (preferences indicating a display order) for another (preferences indicating a display arrangement) to obtain predictable and desirable results (display of information items from a particular order based on the parameters and/or preferences of the application displaying the information feed ). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 32 the combination of Helvik, Beechuk, Narayanan and Sukumaran discloses all of the limitations of Claim 31.
Additionally, Sukumaran discloses “the first event feed displayed in the first interface of the issue tracking system prioritizes the first feed item over the second feed item (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104: “At a step 120 of the routine 114, the client device 202 may be caused, based at least in part on the preference indicated by the data (e.g., the notification type preference settings 112), to present the first notification 546 earlier than the second notification 546 in an activity feed 544 generated by the application ( e.g., the resource access application 522); and
the second event feed displayed in the second interface of the second system prioritizes the second feed item over the first feed item (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104: “As FIG. 1A illustrates, the individual notifications 546 in the activity feed may be sorted in accordance with the selected preference rankings.” - while not explicitly, display of the notifications in a different order based on different preference settings is implied).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik, as modified by Beechuk and Narayanan, to display information items in a particular order in the information feed based on preference settings provided to the feed access application displaying the information feed as taught by Sukumaran for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 30.
However, while Narayanan discloses displaying feed data in a single or multiple columns based on the parameters and/or preferences of the application displaying the feed data (Narayanan paragraphs 19, 22, 26 and 36-37), the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan does not explicitly disclose “the first manner includes displaying the first and second feed items in accordance with a first grouping in the first interface of the issue tracking system; and
the second manner includes displaying the first and second feed items in accordance with a second grouping in the second interface of the second system, the second grouping different than the first grouping.”
In the same field of endeavor, Sukumaran discloses that notifications may be grouped by notification source and the order in which the groups of notifications are displayed in activity feed is based on preference settings provided to the application displaying the event feed (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104:: "In such implementations, the activity feed 544 may present groups of notifications 546 from respective applications in an order dependent on the selected preference rankings, with a first group of notifications relating to the application having the most-preferred ranking appearing earliest in the feed, a second group of notifications relating to the next most preferred ranking appearing next in the feed, and so forth.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik, as modified by Beechuk and Narayanan, to display the information items in a particular order based on the parameters and/or preferences as taught by Sukumaran because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (preferences indicating a display order) for another (preferences indicating a display arrangement) to obtain predictable and desirable results (display of information items from a particular order based on the parameters and/or preferences of the application displaying the information feed ). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan in view of Zaveri, Pub. No. US 2014/0372539 A1.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 20.
Additionally, Beechuk discloses wherein “the first content item is an issue ticket hosted by the issue tracking system (Beechuk figs. 15 and 20 and paragraphs 349, 359-363 and 368: the content comprises information associated with the case, such as a problem report, which is analogous to an issue ticket);
the method further comprises generating a first feed item corresponding to the first event (Beechuk figs. 15 and 20 and paragraph 359 and 365: the feed item, e.g., feed item 1510, related to the case is generated), the first feed item comprising:
a title of the issue ticket (Beechuk fig. 15: feed item 1510 displayed in user interface 1500 has a title, i.e., “Scott Beechuk created this case.”);” and
causing the first feed item to be displayed in the event feed (Beechuk figs. 15 and 20 and paragraph 359 and 368: the feed item is displayed to the user within information feed 1504).”
However, while Beechuk discloses that the feed items presented in the information feed can include one or more actionable selections that can be selected by the user (Beechuk paragraphs 51, 61, 66 and 359-368), and further discloses that a user
May share the case with another user via an actionable selection (Beechuk fig. 19 and Paragraph 357), the combination of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan does not explicitly disclose wherein the feed item comprises “an actionable input object operable to cause the issue tracking system to assign the issue ticket to a second user”.
In the same field of endeavor, Zaveri discloses generating a first card relating to an event, i.e., a feed item, for display in a dashboard, wherein the first card comprises a secondary action that can be performed with respect to the card, such as adding a comment or assigning a task associated with the event to another user (Zaveri figs. 5 and 9 and paragraphs 146-147, 151 and 188-189: “Some examples of secondary actions include... assigning a task associated with the event to another user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Helvik, Beechuk and Narayanan, to include task assignment as an actionable selection in a feed item associated with the case as taught by Zaveri because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (including a task assignment element within an event notification presented in a user interface) to known devices and/or methods (a method for populating an activity feed) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (initiating task assignment directly from the activity notification). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 24, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helvik in view of Sukumaran.
Regarding Claim 24, Helvik discloses “A networked computer system (Helvik figs. 1 and 9 and paragraphs 4, 27 and 81: server 130 for providing an activity stream, e.g., information feed 105) comprising:
one or more processing units (Helvik fig. 9 and paragraph 81: server 130 - while not explicitly stated, the presence of a hardware processor is inferred); and
computer memory operably coupled to the one or more processing units and storing instructions (Helvik fig. 9 and paragraph 81: server 130 - while not explicitly stated, the presence of memory comprising instructions for providing the information feed is inferred) configured to cause the networked computer system to:
receive, from a first system, a notification of a first event associated with a first content item managed by the first system and associated with a user (Helvik figs. 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 21-23, 45-46 and 58: activity data 405 is retrieved from second source 210, wherein the activity data is related to the content of the second source 210);
receive, from a second system distinct from the first system, a notification of a second event associated with a second content item managed by the second system and associated with the user (Helvik figs. 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 21-23, 45-46 and 58: activity data 404 is retrieved from first source 205, wherein the activity data is related to the content of the first source 205);
cause generation of a first feed item for an event feed, the first feed item based on the first event (Helvik figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 18, 23-25, 46-48 and 59: a first information item, e.g., information item 110, is generated and placed in information feed 105 based on activity data 405 retrieved from second source 210);
cause generation of a second feed item for an event feed, the second feed item based on the second event (Helvik figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and paragraphs 18, 23-25, 46-48 and 59: a second information item, e.g., information item 115, is generated and placed in information feed 105 based on activity data 404 retrieved from first source 205);
subsequent to receiving a first request for the event feed for the first system, causing the event feed, including the first and second feed items, to be displayed at an interface of the first system... (Helvik figs. 2, 5A and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27, 51 and 60: a first instance of information feed 105 is displayed (Step 625) in response to the user accessing information feed 105 a first time (Step 620), e.g., using feed access application 260, which may be a module of an application associated with the content of second source 210); and
subsequent to receiving a second request for the event feed for the second system, causing the event feed, including the first and second feed items, to be displayed at an interface of the second system... (Helvik figs. 2, 5B and 6 and paragraphs 20-21, 27, 51 and 61: a second instance of information feed 105 is displayed (Step 640) in response to the user accessing information feed 105 a subsequent time (Step 635) - while not explicitly stated, it is implied that the subsequent accessing and displaying of information feed 105 are made using a different feed access application, e.g., feed access application 250, which may be module of an application associated with the content of the first source 205).”
However, while Helvik discloses accessing and displaying the information feed using different front-end applications associated with the information sources (Helvik paragraphs 4, 20-21, 27 and 60), Helvik does not explicitly disclose “subsequent to receiving a first request for the event feed for the first system, causing the event feed, including the first and second feed items, to be displayed at an interface of the first system in a first order (emphasis added); and
subsequent to receiving a second request for the event feed for the second system, causing the event feed, including the first and second feed items, to be displayed at an interface of the second system in second order different than the first order (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Sukumaran discloses that the order in which notifications are displayed in activity feed is based on preference settings provided to the application displaying the event feed (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104: “In such implementations, the activity feed 544 may present groups of notifications 546 from respective applications in an order dependent on the selected preference rankings, with a first group of notifications relating to the application having the most-preferred ranking appearing earliest in the feed, a second group of notifications relating to the next most preferred ranking appearing next in the feed, and so forth.” – while not explicitly stated, a different display order based on different preference settings is implied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik to display information items in a particular order in the information feed based on preference settings provided to the feed access application displaying the information feed as taught by Sukumaran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine displaying information items in a particular order in the information feed based on preference settings provided to the feed access application displaying the information feed to enhance the productivity of the user accessing the information feed using the feed access application (Sukumaran paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran disclose all of the limitations of Claim 24.
Additionally, Sukumaran discloses “the event feed displayed in the interface of the first system prioritizes the first feed item over the second feed item (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104: “At a step 120 of the routine 114, the client device 202 may be caused, based at least in part on the preference indicated by the data (e.g., the notification type preference settings 112), to present the first notification 546 earlier than the second notification 546 in an activity feed 544 generated by the application ( e.g., the resource access application 522); and
the event feed displayed in the interface of the second system prioritizes the second feed item over the first feed item (Sukumaran figs. 1A-1B and 6 and paragraphs 3, 32-33, 39, 44-45 and 104: “As FIG. 1A illustrates, the individual notifications 546 in the activity feed may be sorted in accordance with the selected preference rankings.” - while not explicitly, display of the notifications in a different order based on different preference settings is implied).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik to display information items in a particular order in the information feed based on preference settings provided to the feed access application displaying the information feed as taught by Sukumaran for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran discloses all of the limitations of Claim 24.
Additionally, Helvik discloses wherein “the first feed item includes:
at least a portion of the first content item (Helvik fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 48: as shown in Figure 1, the first information item 110 comprises at least a portion of a document corresponding to the information item);” and
“the second feed item includes:
at least a portion of the second content item (Helvik fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 48: as shown in Figure 1, the second information item 115 comprises at least a portion of a document corresponding to the information item)”.
However, while Helvik discloses that the information elements displayed in the information feed comprise at least a portion of the content associated with the information element (Helvik fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 48), Helvik does not explicitly disclose wherein the first feed item includes “a first actionable input object configured to cause a change to the first content item based on a first user input received at the first actionable input object” and wherein the second feed item includes “a second feed item including “a second actionable input object configured to cause a change to the second content item based on a second user input received at the second actionable input object”.
In the same field of endeavor, Sukumaran discloses providing action elements within the notifications displayed in an activity feed that can be clicked by the user to cause the action to be performed on the corresponding object in the system of record (Sukumaran fig. 5D and paragraphs 81 and 95-96: “When presented with such an activity feed 544, the user may respond to the notifications 546 by clicking on or
otherwise selecting a corresponding action element 548”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik to provide action elements within the information items displayed within the information feed as taught by Sukumaran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine providing action elements within the information items displayed within the information feed to enable the user to perform actions on the corresponding object without launching the native application (Sukumaran paragraph 97).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran in view of Narayanan.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran disclose all of the limitations of Claim 24.
However, while Helvik discloses accessing and displaying the information feed using different front-end applications associated with the information sources (Helvik paragraphs 4, 20-21, 27 and 60), the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran does not explicitly disclose wherein “the event feed displayed in the interface of the first system is displayed in a first graphical arrangement (emphasis added); and
the event feed displayed in the interface of the second system is displayed in a second graphical arrangement different than the first graphical arrangement (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor Narayanan discloses “the event feed displayed in the interface of the first system is displayed in a first graphical arrangement (Narayanan fig. 2A and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in a single column based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data); and
the event feed displayed in the interface of the second system is displayed in a second graphical arrangement different than the first graphical arrangement (Narayanan fig. 2B and paragraphs 19, 22, 26-28 and 36-37: feed data 116 may be rendered and displayed in multiple columns based on preferences of the particular application program 106 displaying the feed data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik, as modified by Sukumaran, to display the information items of the information feed in a single column or multiple columns based on the preferences of the feed access application displaying the information feed as taught by Narayanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine displaying the information items of the information feed in a single column or multiple columns based on the preferences of the feed access application displaying the information feed (Narayanan paragraphs 4, 20 and 65).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran in view of Beechuk.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran disclose all of the limitations of Claim 24.
Additionally, Helvik discloses wherein “the second system is a collaborative document system and the second content item is a user-generated document (Helvik figs. 2 and 4 and paragraphs 21-23, 35 and 45: first source 205 be a cloud-based storage storing documents of a collaborative work group, i.e., a collaborative document system)”.
However, while Helvik discloses accessing and displaying the information feed using different front-end applications associated with the information sources (Helvik paragraphs 4, 20-21, 27 and 60), the combination of Helvik and Sukumaran does not explicitly disclose wherein “the first system is an issue tracking system and the first content item is an issue ticket hosted by the issue tracking system”.
In the same field of endeavor, Beechuk discloses techniques for feed-based case management wherein events related to a case associated with a customer are presented as feed items in an information feed (Beechuk figs. 4 and 15 and paragraphs 38-40, 45, 61, 132-139, 349, 359 and 368: database system 416 provides a feed service that displays information feed 1504 comprising feed items relating to a record of a case associated with a customer, such as a record associated with a problem or support request, which is analogous to an issue ticket).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Helvik, as modified by Sukumaran, to retrieve activity data related to customer cases from a case management system and to display the activity as information elements in the information feed as taught by Beechuk because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a social networking site) for another (a case management system) to obtain predictable and desirable results (display of information items relating to customer cases in the information feed). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art discloses a system and method for surfacing information to a user in an information feed wherein different front-end applications can be used to access and display the information feed (Helvik et al., US 2015/0249715 A1). The prior at separately discloses a method for sorting, filtering and/or grouping notifications of an activity feed wherein the notifications may be grouped by notification source and displayed in particular order based on preference settings, and wherein the different notification types may comprise different action elements, e.g., clickable buttons that trigger different actions on the corresponding content in the system of record (Sukumaran et al., US 2022/0276911 A1). However, the cited prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, wherein the first feed item displayed in the interface of the first system is displayed with a first set of one or more actional input objects or controls, and the first feed item displayed in the interface of the second system is displayed with a second set of one or more actional input objects or controls that are different than the first set as recited in Claim 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fukahori, Pub. No. US 2012/0102420 A1, discloses a system and method for selecting updates to associated records to publish on an information feed wherein the information updates, i.e., feed items, in the information feed may be associated with one or more action buttons and wherein the information updates may be displayed in an order of importance based on an importance ranking assigned to some or all of the updates or displayed in a different ordering determined by the user or by the service provider.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449