DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed August 17th, 2026. Claims 1, 7-9, 11, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 08/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 20-22 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Regarding Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, Applicant begins on page 20 of the provided remarks to argue that the previous characterization of the claim as a mental process is overbroad. On pages 20-21 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “The claim now affirmatively recites a specific computer-implemented configuration process in a data analysis tool, including a to-be- configured indicator entry in an event analysis interface, historical configuration items selected based on respective matching probabilities, objective query information gathered within a predetermined duration from the current user and other users in the same project, and a matching-probability threshold for selecting the items. These limitations require particular data records and computer interface operations that cannot be performed merely by mental observation without the claimed data analysis tool and its database context.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that the argued “data analysis tool, including a to-be- configured indicator entry in an event analysis interface” are moot as the following are additional elements not reciting the argued abstract idea. Additionally, the argued “historical configuration items selected based on respective matching probabilities, objective query information gathered within a predetermined duration from the current user and other users in the same project, and a matching-probability threshold for selecting the items” recite the argued abstract idea of mental process as the selection of historical configuration items, respective matching probability determination, and use of a matching-probability threshold for selecting items are mental observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind. Further, specifically regarding the above selection limitations, the claim recites “presenting, in the event analysis interface” however it does not recite utilizing the interface to perform the argued steps. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the following information is presented to a user to perform the argued selection steps. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Further on page 21 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “The Office action characterizes the claims at a level of abstraction that omits the claimed data structures and computer processing.” Specifically, Applicant argues “These operations require processing of project-wide historical data maintained by the data analysis tool and cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, and asserts as stated above, that while Applicant argues that these processes require data maintained by a data analysis tool, the data, per the amended claim language, is merely utilized at a high-level of generality to select the historical configuration items. The claim does not recite the argued “processing of project-wide historical data” but merely utilizing data to select the historical configuration items which based on an evaluation of the data could be performed as a function of the human mind. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant argues on pages 21-22 of the provided remarks that the amended claims integrate the argued judicial exception into a practical application. Beginning on page 21 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the “ordered combination applies the matching-probability calculation to a specific data-analysis configuration workflow and improves the operation of the analysis configuration interface by reducing arbitrary manual selection among historical configuration items”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by citing, MPEP 2106.05(a) “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” As Applicant has not provided Specification support for the argued technical improvement to a technical problem asserted above, Examiner notes the above argument as a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Further citing MPEP 2106.05(a), “iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” was listed as an example the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, the argued reduction in manual selection of historical configuration items would not be deemed sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Additionally, as amended and argued above, the present claims do not recite the active automated selection of historical configuration items as argued. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) “the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”. Therefore, the claims do not recite an improvement to computer functionality as argued. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 21-22 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the claimed matching-probability calculation is integrated into a concrete analysis-configuration workflow that changes how the data analysis tool generates analysis configurations and accesses analysis data, rather than merely presenting information for user review”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting, as stated above, the present claims do not recite the improvement to a data analysis tool as argued as the data analysis tool is merely recited to contain an event analysis interface. The argued data analysis tool is not actively utilized again throughout the entirety of the independent claims. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) “the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”. Therefore, the claims do not recite an improvement to computer functionality as argued. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the amended “particular combination of interface state, project/user query statistics, threshold-based item selection, and downstream buried-point data retrieval was well-understood, routine, and conventional”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued claim elements above regarding the selection of historical configuration items and applying a matching-probability threshold are directed to the abstract idea. Further, the argued “using the selected target configuration to obtain buried point data for event analysis” is arguing intended use of the claimed target configuration presentation. Under Step 2B analysis, per MPEP 2106.05(II) “Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” Therefore, addressing the recitation of additional elements and not the elements listed above by Applicant, the claims fail to recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, on page 22 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the previous rejection “analyzes induvial claim elements in isolation, such as displaying information, receiving input, or accessing a database. However, the Supreme Court and the USPTO eligibility guidance require evaluation of the claim as an ordered combination.” As provided above, per MPEP 2106.05(II) “Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” Therefore, the previous and current combination of additional element analysis under Step 2B is maintained. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 22-23, filed 08/17/26, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 05/15/26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 23-26, filed 08/17/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Panchal (U.S 2021/0232576 A1) in view of Cooper (U.S 2011/0106617 A1) in view of Yao (WO 2019/085084 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 11 (device), and 20 (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 11 is directed to a device (i.e. machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite configuration analysis, implemented in a data analysis tool by at least one processor, comprising: presenting an event analysis interface in the data analysis tool, wherein the event analysis interface comprises a to-be-configured indicator entry, the to-be-configured indicator entry configured to configure an object to be analyzed, and the to-be-configured indicator entry comprises an event setting item and a calculation condition setting item; wherein the event setting item is configured to set an event of the object to be analyzed, and the calculation condition setting item is configured to set a calculation condition of the object to be analyzed, the calculation condition comprising a calculation manner, or the calculation condition comprising the calculation manner and at least one filtering condition; presenting, in the event analysis interface in response to a target trigger operation, a configuration recommendation panel corresponding to the to-be-configured indicator entry, wherein a plurality of recommendation configuration items are presented in the configuration recommendation panel, wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are historical configuration items selected from a historical configuration item set based on respective matching probabilities with a current user, wherein each respective matching probability is determined based on query information, within a predetermined duration, of the current user and the other users in a same project, and wherein the selected historical configuration items comprise historical configuration items having matching probabilities greater than or equal to a matching probability threshold, and each historical configuration item is configured to indicate configuration information of a historical analysis object; and presenting, in the to-be-configured indicator entry, target configuration information corresponding to a target recommendation configuration item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item in the plurality of recommendation configuration items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target configuration information, and perform event analysis on the object to be analyzed to obtain an analysis result (Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are performing configuration analysis comprising setting an event of the object to be analyzed; setting a calculation condition of the object to be analyzed; presenting the plurality of recommendation configuration items based on selected historical configuration items sets having a matching probability greater than or equal to a matching probability threshold; and performing event analysis on the object to be analyzed to obtain an analysis result, which are observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing configuration analysis, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the plurality of recommendation items; the configuration recommendation panel display based on an event tag state and indicator tag state; the ranking of recommendation configuration items; the source identification display within the configuration recommendation panel; the display of the configuration recommendation panel in response to trigger operations; the configuration details panel based on the target recommendation configuration item; presenting an indicator recommendation panel in response to a trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry; presenting, in the calculation condition setting item, a target calculation condition of an indicator indicated by a target recommendation indicator item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation indicator item in the plurality of recommendation indicator items, so as to perform event analysis on the object to be analyzed to obtain an analysis result; the arrangement of recommendation indicator items in descending order according to corresponding recommendation indices; updating a target calculation condition in response to an edit operation on the target calculation condition in response that the target event is presented in the event setting item and the target calculation condition is presented in the calculation condition setting item; target trigger operations; and configuration information of an analysis object. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “presenting an event analysis interface in the data analysis tool, wherein the event analysis interface comprises a to-be-configured indicator entry, the to-be-configured indicator entry configured to configure an object to be analyzed, and the to-be-configured indicator entry comprises an event setting item and a calculation condition setting item; presenting, in the event analysis interface in response to a target trigger operation, a configuration recommendation panel corresponding to the to-be-configured indicator entry, wherein a plurality of recommendation configuration items are presented in the configuration recommendation panel; presenting, in the to-be-configured indicator entry, target configuration information corresponding to a target recommendation configuration item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item in the plurality of recommendation configuration items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target configuration information” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a data analysis tool by at least one processor; an event analysis interface; a database; an event library; a local indicator library; an indicator library of a third-party data management application; An electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, the computer program, when called by the processor, performs acts; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements acts” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14-17, and 19 additionally recite “the configuration recommendation panel is further configured to present a plurality of historical event configuration items”, “the configuration recommendation panel is further configured to present a plurality of historical indicator configuration items”, “after presenting, in response to the trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry, the configuration recommendation panel, the method further comprises: presenting, in response to the trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item, a configuration details panel corresponding to the target recommendation configuration item”, “in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical event configuration item, a buried point real-time verification control is further presented in the configuration details panel”, “a configurator identification corresponding to the target recommendation configuration item is further presented in the configuration details panel”, “presenting an indicator recommendation panel in response to a trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry”, “presenting, in the calculation condition setting item, a target calculation condition of an indicator indicated by a target recommendation indicator item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation indicator item in the plurality of recommendation indicator items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target event and the target calculation condition”, “wherein the indicator recommendation panel further presents a source identification of each recommendation indicator item”, “wherein the recommendation index of the recommendation indicator is obtained through comprehensive evaluation based on historical query information of a corresponding recommendation indicator”, “presenting, in response to the first trigger operation, the configuration recommendation panel comprising the search control; and presenting, in response to the search operation, the plurality of recommendation configuration items in the configuration recommendation panel” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “event analysis user interface” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a data analysis tool by at least one processor; an event analysis interface; a database; an event library; a local indicator library; an indicator library of a third-party data management application; An electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, the computer program, when called by the processor, performs acts; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements acts” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-10; device claims 11-19; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 20 recites “an event analysis interface; a database; an event library; a local indicator library; an indicator library of a third-party data management application; An electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, the computer program, when called by the processor, performs acts; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements acts”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0173-0177 and Figure 7. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “presenting an event analysis interface in the data analysis tool, wherein the event analysis interface comprises a to-be-configured indicator entry, the to-be-configured indicator entry configured to configure an object to be analyzed, and the to-be-configured indicator entry comprises an event setting item and a calculation condition setting item; presenting, in the event analysis interface in response to a target trigger operation, a configuration recommendation panel corresponding to the to-be-configured indicator entry, wherein a plurality of recommendation configuration items are presented in the configuration recommendation panel; presenting, in the to-be-configured indicator entry, target configuration information corresponding to a target recommendation configuration item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item in the plurality of recommendation configuration items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target configuration information” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-10 and 12-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14-17, and 19 additionally recite “the configuration recommendation panel is further configured to present a plurality of historical event configuration items”, “the configuration recommendation panel is further configured to present a plurality of historical indicator configuration items”, “after presenting, in response to the trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry, the configuration recommendation panel, the method further comprises: presenting, in response to the trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item, a configuration details panel corresponding to the target recommendation configuration item”, “in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical event configuration item, a buried point real-time verification control is further presented in the configuration details panel”, “a configurator identification corresponding to the target recommendation configuration item is further presented in the configuration details panel”, “presenting an indicator recommendation panel in response to a trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry”, “presenting, in the calculation condition setting item, a target calculation condition of an indicator indicated by a target recommendation indicator item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation indicator item in the plurality of recommendation indicator items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target event and the target calculation condition”, “wherein the indicator recommendation panel further presents a source identification of each recommendation indicator item”, “wherein the recommendation index of the recommendation indicator is obtained through comprehensive evaluation based on historical query information of a corresponding recommendation indicator”, “presenting, in response to the first trigger operation, the configuration recommendation panel comprising the search control; and presenting, in response to the search operation, the plurality of recommendation configuration items in the configuration recommendation panel” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “event analysis interface” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchal (U.S 2021/0232576 A1) in view of Cooper (U.S 2011/0106617 A1) in view of Yao (WO 2019/085084 A1).
Claims 1, 11, and 20
Regarding Claim 1, Panchal discloses the following:
A method for configuration analysis, implemented in a data analysis tool by at least one processor, comprising [see at least Paragraph 0001 for reference to a method for managing changes to infrastructure in computing systems; Paragraph 0017 for reference to a processor-implemented method of selecting specific configuration items in a database (DB) of items having a hierarchical order is provided; Paragraph 0021 for reference to an example cloud-based system for providing computing services to multiple tenants using common computer hardware, software and data storage; Figure 10 and related text regarding the process flow chart depicting an example process in a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management database having a hierarchical order]
presenting an event analysis interface, wherein the event analysis interface comprises a to-be-configured indicator entry, the to-be-configured indicator entry is configured to configure an object to be analyzed, and the to-be-configured indicator entry comprises an event setting item and a calculation condition setting item [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to selection system comprises a controller configured to provide the example user interface 300 for a service owner to use on a computing device to identify and select one or more configuration items on which to place a lock when attempting to administer changes to one or more configuration items to prevent others from making simultaneous changes to the same one or more configuration items wherein the example user interface includes a configuration item search component, a configuration item hierarchy display component, and a configuration item lock display component; Paragraph 0029 for reference to the controller is configured to use the configuration item search component to receive a search term entered via the configuration item search component, display the received search term in the configuration item search component, and initiate a search for a configuration item corresponding to the search term within the change management database; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding an example user interface provided for a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management database having a hierarchical order]
wherein the event setting item is configured to set an event of the object to be analyzed, and the calculation condition setting item is configured to set a calculation condition of the object to be analyzed, the calculation condition comprising a calculation manner, or the calculation condition comprising the calculation manner and at least one filtering condition [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to depicting an example application of a filter to narrow the display of search results in an example user interface provided by a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management data base having a hierarchical order; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the controller receiving a search term entered in the configuration item search component and initiated the search within the change management database; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the controller causing a filter widget to be displayed in the user interface when selected to display filter options; Figure 7A & 7B and related text regarding the diagrams depicting an example application of a filter to narrow the display of search results in an example user interface provided by a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management data base having a hierarchical order]
presenting, in the event analysis interface in response to a target trigger operation, a configuration recommendation panel corresponding to the to-be-configured indicator entry, wherein a plurality of recommendation configuration items are presented in the configuration recommendation panel, wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are historical configuration items selected from a historical configuration item set based on respective matching with a current user, and each historical configuration item is configured to indicate configuration information of a historical analysis object [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to controller is also configured to cause the configuration item display component to display configuration items in hierarchical order beginning with the top level of the hierarchy, an expansion widget associated with each configuration item that has an associated lower level CI wherein the expansion widget when selected causes the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy to be displayed within the configuration item display component and that when unselected prevents the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy from being displayed; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the example user interface including a display of configuration items in hierarchical order beginning with a higher level of the hierarchy; Paragraph 0039 for reference to search conducted based on the search term has identified a plurality of configuration items matching the search term and the controller has caused a plurality of matching configuration items to be displayed in the configuration item display component including the configuration item in one level above the matching configuration items, and a configuration item selection widget associated with each matching configuration item; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding the ‘display component’]
presenting, in the to-be-configured indicator entry, target configuration information corresponding to a target recommendation configuration item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item in the plurality of recommendation configuration items, so as to perform event analysis on the object to be analyzed to obtain an analysis result [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to controller is further configured to cause the configuration item display component to display a configuration item selection widget associated with each configuration item that when selected provides a visual indication that the associated configuration item has been selected and causes the configuration item lock display component to display an identifier for the selected configuration item; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding the ‘selection widget’]
While Panchal discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are historical configuration items selected from a historical configuration item set based on respective matching probabilities with a current user, wherein each respective matching probability is determined based on query information, within a predetermined duration, of the current user and other users in the same project, and wherein the selected historical configuration items comprise historical configuration items having matching probabilities greater than or equal to a matching probability threshold; presenting, target configuration information corresponding to a target recommendation configuration item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item in the plurality of recommendation configuration items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target configuration information.
However, Cooper discloses the following:
wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are historical configuration items selected from a historical configuration item set based on respective matching probabilities with a current user [see at least Paragraph 0089 for reference to previous search request being associated with a user; Paragraph 0217 for reference to a search database including information of previous queries and previous search results associated with the requests and the structured query; Paragraph 0255 for reference to a function which measures the probability that a programmatic response from a search resource may be used to respond to a request is evaluated]
wherein each respective matching probability is determined based on query information, within a predetermined duration, of the current user and other users in the same project [see at least Paragraph 0130 for reference to the rating of a result associated with a succinct query affecting the probability that a result will be provided to a user wherein the higher rating of a result for a succinct query increasing a probability that the result will be presented to a user responsive to a query matching the succinct query; Paragraph 0190 for reference to results of the processes and/or probability factors associated with various versions of a query; Paragraph 0238 for reference to vetted query may be compared to a keyword table associated with a user, advertising, and/or other response keywords; Paragraph 0255 for reference to a function which measures the probability that a programmatic response from a search resource may be used to respond to a request is evaluated; Claim 20 and related text regarding ‘determining a time period between the search request and the previous search query and adjusting a probability that the search request will be processed automatically based on the time period’]
wherein the selected historical configuration items comprise historical configuration items having matching probabilities greater than or equal to a matching probability threshold [see at least Paragraph 0130 for reference to the rating of a result associated with a succinct query affecting the probability that a result will be provided to a user wherein the higher rating of a result for a succinct query increasing a probability that the result will be presented to a user responsive to a query matching the succinct query; Paragraph 0190 for reference to results of the processes and/or probability factors associated with various versions of a query; Paragraph 0235 for reference to a database of verified answers and associated queries may be created and maintained wherein such responses have a high quality rating, which may permit a lower matching threshold to be used to determine if such a result is to be provided responsive to a query]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the matching presentation of configuration items of Panchal to include the selection based on matching probabilities and query results of Cooper. Doing so ensures a high quality response to the most common types of queries, avoiding an opportunity for errors by inexperienced and/or inattentive guides seeking information which is readily available, as stated by Cooper (Paragraph 0300).
While the combination of Panchal and Cooper discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose presenting, target configuration information corresponding to a target recommendation configuration item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item in the plurality of recommendation configuration items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target configuration information.
However, Yao discloses the following:
presenting, target configuration information corresponding to a target recommendation configuration item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item in the plurality of recommendation configuration items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target configuration information [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to the control name is a collection element in the target collection, and the access attribute has a preset attribute value, the control is marked as a touchable control, and the buried point information corresponding to the circled selectable touch control is obtained, and the buried point is obtained; Paragraph 0052 for reference to collection element in the target collection can further identify whether the control is a touchable control; if the control is a touchable control, the buried point information corresponding to the circled touchable control is sent to the terminal; Paragraph 0077 for reference to the system sending a visual burying point request to the server; the receiving server returns a configuration table according to the visual burying point request, and the configuration table records the plurality of configuration items]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the target configuration display of Panchel to include the obtaining of buried point data of Yao. Doing so data can optimize the attribute information of the reported view to a certain extent, and can also reduce the attribute information of the first terminal to obtain the view and the time for filling in the configuration table, thereby improving the recognition efficiency of the server for the touchable control, as stated by Yao (Paragraph 0081).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Panchel teaches an electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, the computer program [Paragraph 0021 and Figure 1]. Regarding claim 20, Panchel teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements acts [Paragraph 0069]. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao.
Claims 2 and 12
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Panchal discloses the following:
wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items comprise at least one of the following: at least one historical event configuration item and at least one historical indicator configuration item [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked and causes an identifier for the selected configuration item to be displayed in the configuration item lock display component; Paragraph 0045 for reference to a plurality of configuration item have been selected and their selection indicated by the plurality of marked configuration item selection widgets in the configuration item hierarchy display component and identifiers for the selected configuration items; Figures 4-9 and related text regarding ‘configuration items’ and ‘identifiers’]
the configuration recommendation panel further comprises an event tag and an indicator tag, and in response that the event tag is in a selected state, the configuration recommendation panel is further configured to present a plurality of historical event configuration items, wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are ranked before the plurality of historical event configuration items, and the at least one historical event configuration item is a part of the plurality of historical event configuration items, wherein each historical event configuration item is used to indicate event configuration information of a historical analysis object [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to a plurality of configuration item have been selected and their selection indicated by the plurality of marked configuration item selection widgets in the configuration item hierarchy display component and identifiers for the selected configuration items; Paragraph 0047 for reference to a plurality of configuration items may be selected via the select / unselect all widget associated with the higher level configuration item when the select / unselect all widget is in a select state, similarly, a plurality may be unselected via the select / unselect all widget associated with the higher level configuration item when the select / unselect all widget is in a unselect state; Figures 4-9 and related text regarding ‘configuration items’ and ‘identifiers’; Figures 5A and 5B and related text regarding depicting a selected state and an unselected state of an example user interface]
in response that the indicator tag is in a selected state, the configuration recommendation panel is further configured to present a plurality of historical indicator configuration items, wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are ranked before the plurality of historical indicator configuration items, and the at least one historical indicator configuration item is a part of the plurality of historical indicator configuration items, wherein each historical indicator configuration item is used to indicate indicator configuration information of a historical analysis object [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to a plurality of configuration item have been selected and their selection indicated by the plurality of marked configuration item selection widgets in the configuration item hierarchy display component and identifiers for the selected configuration items; Paragraph 0047 for reference to a plurality of configuration items may be selected via the select / unselect all widget associated with the higher level configuration item when the select / unselect all widget is in a select state, similarly, a plurality may be unselected via the select / unselect all widget associated with the higher level configuration item when the select / unselect all widget is in a unselect state; Figures 4-9 and related text regarding ‘configuration items’ and ‘identifiers’; Figures 5A and 5B and related text regarding depicting a selected state and an unselected state of an example user interface]
wherein the historical configuration item set comprises the plurality of historical event configuration items and the plurality of historical indicator configuration items [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked and causes an identifier for the selected configuration item to be displayed in the configuration item lock display component; Paragraph 0045 for reference to a plurality of configuration item have been selected and their selection indicated by the plurality of marked configuration item selection widgets in the configuration item hierarchy display component and identifiers for the selected configuration items; Figures 4-9 and related text regarding ‘configuration items’ and ‘identifiers’]
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 13
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Panchal discloses the following:
wherein the configuration recommendation panel further comprises a source identification corresponding to each recommendation configuration item [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to controller is also configured to cause the configuration item display component to display con figuration items in hierarchical order beginning with the top level of the hierarchy, an expansion widget associated with each configuration item that has an associated lower level CI wherein the expansion widget when selected causes the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy to be displayed within the configuration item display component and that when unselected prevents the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy from being displayed; Figure 3-9 and related text regarding ‘expansion widget’]
in response that the recommendation configuration item is a historical event configuration item, the source identification corresponding to the recommendation configuration item is an event identification, and the event identification is used to indicate that the recommendation configuration item is from an event library; or in response that the recommendation configuration item is a historical indicator configuration item, the source identification of the recommendation configuration item comprises any one of the following: a local indicator identification, a from-chart identification, and a third-party indicator identification [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to controller is also configured to cause the configuration item display component to display con figuration items in hierarchical order beginning with the top level of the hierarchy, an expansion widget associated with each configuration item that has an associated lower level CI wherein the expansion widget when selected causes the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy to be displayed within the configuration item display component and that when unselected prevents the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy from being displayed; Figure 3-9 and related text regarding ‘expansion widget’]
wherein the local indicator identification is used to indicate that the recommendation configuration item is from a local indicator library, the from-chart identification is used to indicate that the recommendation configuration item is from chart information in an analysis result corresponding to a historical analysis object, and the third-party indicator identification is used to indicate that the recommendation configuration item is from an indicator library of a third-party data management application [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to example CI attributes in the change management database 102, wherein each CI attribute has a CI Name, CI Type, Status and a unique CI Path, wherein the CI Path can be used to identify unique groupings of Cls within search results since it can accurately determine the hierarchy wherein the illustrated example, the example CI 202 has the CI name: Core, CI type: product, CI status: none, and CI path: Salesforce.Core; Paragraph 0032 for reference to the identifier including one or more attributes of the CI; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked and causes an identifier for the selected configuration item to be displayed in the configuration item lock display component; Paragraph 0045 for reference to a plurality of configuration item have been selected and their selection indicated by the plurality of marked configuration item selection widgets in the configuration item hierarchy display component and identifiers for the selected configuration items; Figure 2A and related text regarding examples of CI attributes; Figures 4-9 and related text regarding ‘configuration items’ and ‘identifiers’]
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 4, Panchal discloses the following:
wherein after presenting, in response to the trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry, the configuration recommendation panel, the method further comprises: presenting, in response to the trigger operation on the target recommendation configuration item, a configuration details panel corresponding to the target recommendation configuration item, wherein configuration information of a target analysis object indicated by the target recommendation configuration item is presented in the configuration details panel [see at least controller is configured to cause the configuration item lock display component to display an identifier for any selected configuration item and configured to provide in the user interface a lock initiation widget that when selected initiates a process of locking each selected configuration item displayed in the configuration item lock display component; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked and causes an identifier for the selected configuration item to be displayed in the configuration item lock display component; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding ‘lock display component’]
in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical event configuration item, the configuration information of the target analysis object comprises an event identification, event description information, and event data quality information of an event of the target analysis object [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked and causes an identifier for the selected configuration item to be displayed in the configuration item lock display component; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding ‘lock display component’]
in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical indicator configuration item, and a source of the target recommendation configuration item is a local indicator library or an indicator library of a third-party data management application, the configuration information of the target analysis object comprises an indicator meaning, indicator details information, and indicator data quality information of an indicator of the target analysis object; or in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical indicator configuration item, and a source of the target recommendation configuration item is chart information in an analysis result corresponding to a corresponding historical analysis object, the configuration information of the target analysis object comprises indicator details information of an indicator of the target analysis object, a chart identification of a target chart to which the indicator belongs, and a dashboard identification of a target dashboard to which the target chart belongs, wherein the target dashboard is used to present a chart in an analysis result corresponding to at least one historical analysis object [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to example CI attributes in the change management database 102, wherein each CI attribute has a CI Name, CI Type, Status and a unique CI Path, wherein the CI Path can be used to identify unique groupings of Cls within search results since it can accurately determine the hierarchy wherein the illustrated example, the example CI 202 has the CI name: Core, CI type: product, CI status: none, and CI path: Salesforce.Core; Paragraph 0032 for reference to the identifier including one or more attributes of the CI; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked and causes an identifier for the selected configuration item to be displayed in the configuration item lock display component; Paragraph 0045 for reference to a plurality of configuration item have been selected and their selection indicated by the plurality of marked configuration item selection widgets in the configuration item hierarchy display component and identifiers for the selected configuration items; Figure 2A and related text regarding examples of CI attributes; Figures 4-9 and related text regarding ‘configuration items’ and ‘identifiers’]
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, Panchel does not disclose wherein in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical event configuration item, a buried point real-time verification control is further presented in the configuration details panel, and the buried point real-time verification control is used to jump to a corresponding function to verify whether data recently reported by a buried point corresponding to an event of the target analysis object is accurate.
Regarding Claim 5, Yao discloses the following:
wherein in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical event configuration item, a buried point real-time verification control is further presented in the configuration details panel, and the buried point real-time verification control is used to jump to a corresponding function to verify whether data recently reported by a buried point corresponding to an event of the target analysis object is accurate; and/or a configurator identification corresponding to the target recommendation configuration item is further presented in the configuration details panel, and the configurator identification is used to call a target instant messaging application and create a chat window between the current user and a user indicated by the configurator identification; and/or in response that the target recommendation configuration item is a historical indicator configuration item, and a source of the target recommendation configuration item is chart information in an analysis result corresponding to a corresponding historical analysis object, a name of the target recommendation configuration item is generated based on the chart identification and the indicator details information [see at least Paragraph 0052 for reference to collection element in the target collection can further identify whether the control is a touchable control; if the control is a touchable control, the buried point information corresponding to the circled touchable control is sent to the terminal; Paragraph 0053 for reference to buried point information of the control generates a hierarchical path of the buried control according to the multi-fork tree, and sends the hierarchical path of the buried control to the designated terminal; Paragraph 0082 for reference to the first terminal uses the white list carried by the identifier and the corresponding parameter data to jump from the third-party application to the application that needs to set the buried point, triggering the application]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Panchel to include the buried point data control of Yao. Doing so data can optimize the attribute information of the reported view to a certain extent, and can also reduce the attribute information of the first terminal to obtain the view and the time for filling in the configuration table, thereby improving the recognition efficiency of the server for the touchable control, as stated by Yao (Paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Panchal discloses the following:
in response that a target event is presented in the event setting item and no calculation condition is presented in the calculation condition setting item, presenting an indicator recommendation panel in response to a trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry, wherein the indicator recommendation panel comprises a plurality of recommendation indicator items, and each recommendation indicator item is used to indicate an indicator comprising the target event [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to controller is further configured to cause the configuration item display component to display a configuration item selection widget associated with each configuration item that when selected provides a visual indication that the associated configuration item has been selected and causes the configuration item lock display component to display an identifier for the selected configuration item; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding the ‘selection widget’]
presenting, in the calculation condition setting item, a target calculation condition of an indicator indicated by a target recommendation indicator item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation indicator item in the plurality of recommendation indicator items, so as to perform event analysis on the object to be analyzed to obtain an analysis result [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to controller is further configured to cause the configuration item display component to display a configuration item selection widget associated with each configuration item that when selected provides a visual indication that the associated configuration item has been selected and causes the configuration item lock display component to display an identifier for the selected configuration item; Paragraph 0034 for reference to the controller causes a visual indication (e.g., a check mark) to be displayed by a specific configuration item selection widget that indicates that the associated configuration item has been selected to be locked; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding the ‘selection widget’]
While Panchal discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose presenting, in the calculation condition setting item, a target calculation condition of an indicator indicated by a target recommendation indicator item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation indicator item in the plurality of recommendation indicator items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target event and the target calculation condition.
However, Yao discloses the following:
presenting, in the calculation condition setting item, a target calculation condition of an indicator indicated by a target recommendation indicator item in response to a trigger operation on the target recommendation indicator item in the plurality of recommendation indicator items, so as to obtain corresponding buried point data from a database corresponding to the object to be analyzed based on the target event and the target calculation condition [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to the control name is a collection element in the target collection, and the access attribute has a preset attribute value, the control is marked as a touchable control, and the buried point information corresponding to the circled selectable touch control is obtained, and the buried point is obtained; Paragraph 0052 for reference to collection element in the target collection can further identify whether the control is a touchable control; if the control is a touchable control, the buried point information corresponding to the circled touchable control is sent to the terminal]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the target configuration display of Panchel to include the obtaining of buried point data of Yao. Doing so data can optimize the attribute information of the reported view to a certain extent, and can also reduce the attribute information of the first terminal to obtain the view and the time for filling in the configuration table, thereby improving the recognition efficiency of the server for the touchable control, as stated by Yao (Paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 7, Panchal discloses the following:
wherein the indicator recommendation panel further presents a source identification of each recommendation indicator item, and the source identification of the recommendation indicator item comprises any one of the following: a local indicator identification, a from-chart identification, and a third-party indicator identification [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to controller is also configured to cause the configuration item display component to display con figuration items in hierarchical order beginning with the top level of the hierarchy, an expansion widget associated with each configuration item that has an associated lower level CI wherein the expansion widget when selected causes the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy to be displayed within the configuration item display component and that when unselected prevents the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy from being displayed; Figure 3-9 and related text regarding ‘expansion widget’]
wherein the local indicator identification is used to indicate that the recommendation indicator item is from a local indicator library, the from-chart identification is used to indicate that the recommendation indicator item is from chart information in an analysis result corresponding to a historical analysis object, and the third-party indicator identification is used to indicate that the recommendation indicator item is from an indicator library of a third-party data management application; and/or the plurality of recommendation indicator items are arranged in a descending order according to corresponding recommendation indices, wherein a recommendation index of the recommendation indicator is obtained through comprehensive evaluation based on historical query information of a corresponding recommendation indicator, and the historical query information comprises at least one of the following: a number of historical queries, a number of people conducting historical queries and a historical query record [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to depicting an example application of a filter to narrow the display of search results in an example user interface provided by a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management data base having a hierarchical order; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the controller receiving a search term entered in the configuration item search component and initiated the search within the change management database; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the controller causing a filter widget to be displayed in the user interface when selected to display filter options; Figure 7A & 7B and related text regarding the diagrams depicting an example application of a filter to narrow the display of search results in an example user interface provided by a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management data base having a hierarchical order]
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 8, Panchal discloses the following:
updating a target calculation condition in response to an edit operation on the target calculation condition in response that the target event is presented in the event setting item and a target calculation condition is presented in the calculation condition setting item [see at least Paragraph 0021 for reference to when changes are to be made to a hardware or service module, a service owner wishing to implement the change can request that a lock be placed on the affected hardware or service module to prevent others from simultaneously implementing changes]
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 9, Panchal discloses the following:
wherein the target trigger operation comprises a first trigger operation on the to-be-configured indicator entry and a search operation on a search control, and presenting, in response to the target trigger operation, the configuration recommendation panel corresponding to the to-be-configured indicator entry comprises: presenting, in response to the first trigger operation, the configuration recommendation panel comprising the search control [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to selection system comprises a controller configured to provide the example user interface 300 for a service owner to use on a computing device to identify and select one or more configuration items on which to place a lock when attempting to administer changes to one or more configuration items to prevent others from making simultaneous changes to the same one or more configuration items wherein the example user interface includes a configuration item search component, a configuration item hierarchy display component, and a configuration item lock display component; Paragraph 0029 for reference to the controller is configured to use the configuration item search component to receive a search term entered via the configuration item search component, display the received search term in the configuration item search component, and initiate a search for a configuration item corresponding to the search term within the change management database; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding an example user interface provided for a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management database having a hierarchical order]
presenting, in response to the search operation, the plurality of recommendation configuration items in the configuration recommendation panel, wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are historical configuration items that have matching in a plurality of search configuration items, and the plurality of search configuration items are historical configuration items that are obtained by searching the historical configuration items in the historical configuration item set and that match a search keyword corresponding to the search operation [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to controller is also configured to cause the configuration item display component to display configuration items in hierarchical order beginning with the top level of the hierarchy, an expansion widget associated with each configuration item that has an associated lower level CI wherein the expansion widget when selected causes the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy to be displayed within the configuration item display component and that when unselected prevents the next level of configuration items below the associated configuration item in the hierarchy from being displayed; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the example user interface including a display of configuration items in hierarchical order beginning with a higher level of the hierarchy; Paragraph 0039 for reference to search conducted based on the search term has identified a plurality of configuration items matching the search term and the controller has caused a plurality of matching configuration items to be displayed in the configuration item display component including the configuration item in one level above the matching configuration items, and a configuration item selection widget associated with each matching configuration item; Figures 3-9 and related text regarding the ‘display component’]
While Panchal discloses the limitations above, Panchal does not disclose wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are historical configuration items that have matching probabilities greater than or equal to a matching probability threshold in a plurality of search configuration items.
However, Cooper discloses the following:
wherein the plurality of recommendation configuration items are historical configuration items that have matching probabilities greater than or equal to a matching probability threshold in a plurality of search configuration items [see at least Paragraph 0130 for reference to the rating of a result associated with a succinct query affecting the probability that a result will be provided to a user wherein the higher rating of a result for a succinct query increasing a probability that the result will be presented to a user responsive to a query matching the succinct query; Paragraph 0190 for reference to results of the processes and/or probability factors associated with various versions of a query; Paragraph 0235 for reference to a database of verified answers and associated queries may be created and maintained wherein such responses have a high quality rating, which may permit a lower matching threshold to be used to determine if such a result is to be provided responsive to a query]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the matching presentation of configuration items of Panchal to include the selection based on matching probabilities and query results of Cooper. Doing so ensures a high quality response to the most common types of queries, avoiding an opportunity for errors by inexperienced and/or inattentive guides seeking information which is readily available, as stated by Cooper (Paragraph 0300).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10
While the combination of Panchal, Cooper, and Yao disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 10, Panchal discloses the following:
wherein configuration information of an analysis object indicated by each search configuration item comprises the search keyword, and/or configuration information of an analysis object indicated by each search configuration item comprises information representing a generalized meaning of the search keyword [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to controller is configured to use the configuration item search component to receive a search term entered via the configuration item search component, display the received search term in the configuration item search component, and initiate a search for a configuration item corresponding to the search term within the change management database; Figure 3, 6, 7A & 7B and related text regarding ‘search term’ as well as the example display of search results in a user interface provided by a selection system for use by a service owner to select specific configuration items in a change management database having a hierarchical order]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ekstrand, Michael D., John T. Riedl, and Joseph A. Konstan. "Collaborative filtering recommender systems." Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction 4.2 (2011): 81-173.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2020/0387268 A1
Shipman et al.
Dynamically customized application selection and recommendation systems
CN114090873A
Zhang, Xuebing
Method, device, equipment and computer readable medium for matching data
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
