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 .
Claim Status
Claims 21, 23-30, 32-33 and 35-40 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 23-30, 32-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “causing display, on a user device, of a user interface showing a hierarchical relationship between a first issue and a second issue.”
Claim 21 recites “in accordance with a determination based on the new hierarchy issue type association record that the first issue type and the second issue type of the second issue are not hierarchically related.” The above is not supported by the specification and is in direct contrast to the previous claim 1 limitation.
Claim 21 recites:
updating display of the user interface to include a set of issues other than the second issue, the set of issues associated with the first issue; and
in response to receiving a user selection of a particular issue of the set of issues, updating display of the user interface to include an additional set of issues associated with the particular issue.
The above limitations are not supported by the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation will be given to above limitations.
Independent claims 28 and 35 recite similar language.
Dependent claims 23-27, 29-30, 32-33 and 36-40 are rejected for at least being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2020/0311055) in view of Sievert (US 9,542,292).
Examiner Note: Hereafter, above references are combination A.
causing display, on a user device, of a user interface showing a hierarchical relationship
between a first issue and a second issue;
Zhang [0080] The hierarchy level data 126 includes data in relation to hierarchy levels. Hierarchy levels may be defined in various ways, however in the above example includes an identifier, a name for the hierarchy level, as well as an identifier for the hierarchy level above and an identifier with the hierarchy level below. If a hierarchy level is the highest hierarchy level, then the hierarchy level above may be empty or null. If a hierarchy level is the lowest hierarchy level, then the hierarchy level below will be empty or null.
receiving, from the user device, a request to change a hierarchy level associated with
the first issue to a different hierarchy level, the hierarchical relationship between the first issue
and the second issue defined by the configurable project hierarchy, the hierarchy level and the
different hierarchy level defined by the configurable project hierarchy; and
Zhang [0103] At 514, the ITS client receives the issue type associated notification. The user can then perform various operations regarding the issue type/hierarchy level association that has been created. For example, once an issue type is associated with a hierarchy level a user may wish to change the particular hierarchy level the issue type is associated with—e.g. by moving it from a given level (e.g. base level 0) to a sub-task level (e.g. level −1). A user may also/alternatively want to delete the association.
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store. The method further comprises receiving a request to associate a particular issue type with the new hierarchy level and, in response, creating a new hierarchy/issue type association data record including an identifier of the particular issue type and an identifier of the new hierarchy level identifier.
in response to receiving the request to change the hierarchy level associated with the first issue to the different hierarchy level:
creating a new hierarchy-issue type association data record including:
an identifier for a first issue type of the first issue; and a new hierarchy level identifier corresponding to the different hierarchy level; and
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store. The method further comprises receiving a request to associate a particular issue type with the new hierarchy level and, in response, creating a new hierarchy/issue type association data record including an identifier of the particular issue type and an identifier of the new hierarchy level identifier.
associating the first issue type with the different hierarchy level by storing the new hierarchy-issue type association data record in a data store for the configurable project hierarchy; and
corresponding to the different hierarchy level; and
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store.
in accordance with a determination, based on the new hierarchy-issue type association data record, that the first issue type and a second issue type of the second issue are not hierarchically related via the different hierarchy level, causing an update of the user interface to indicate that no hierarchical relationship between the first issue and the second issue exists, comprising:
Zhang [0077] Lastly, each issue type for the particular project can be associated with a particular hierarchy level (e.g. by creating a new hierarchy/issue type association record for each hierarchy/issue type association, each hierarchy/issue type association record including identifiers of an issue type and the hierarchy that issue type is to be associated with).
Examiner Note: above is not patentable subject matter, see above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
updating display of the user interface to include a set of issues other than the second issue, the set of issues associated with the first issue; and
in response to receiving a user selection of a particular issue of the set of issues, updating display of the user interface to include an additional set of issues associated with the particular issue.
Zhang discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Sievert discloses:
Sievert claim 1, A method comprising: generating a user interface incorporating multiple display interfaces; receiving event data corresponding to one or more issues experienced by multiple Internet services for a plurality of events monitored by an operator; gathering context data for the plurality of events from multiple sources, wherein the context data comprises tasks for managing each of the plurality of events; matching the plurality of events with the context data to generate matched context data; configuring the multiple display interfaces to display the event data and the matched context data, the displaying comprising: displaying the one or more issues experienced by the multiple Internet services, displaying a first incident causing a first issue experienced by a first Internet service of the multiple Internet services and displaying a second incident causing a second issue experienced by a second Internet service of the multiple Internet services, wherein the first incident is related to the second incident;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Sievert for the purpose of receiving event data for a plurality of events monitored by an operator viewing the multiple display interfaces, see abstract.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Bystricky (US 2008/0082803).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein each issue of the one or more other set of issues is displayed proximate to a respective
graphical element indicating whether the issue has been completed. However, Bystricky discloses:
Bystricky [0010] The CPU then executes the higher-priority task 2 in conjunction with the display controller. When task 2 has been successfully completed, the CPU issues a Restore_Interface_States command to the display controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Bystricky for the purpose of indicating completion of a task.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Stewart (US 2020/0159929)
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the window updated display of the user interface includes an issue progress bar comprising a visual representation of a number of issues of the one or more other set of issues that have been completed. Stewart discloses:
Stewart [0019] These graphical updates may include, for example, displaying a progress bar, a percent completion rate, a task being performed, debugging information, and so forth, on a display connected to a system in which BIOS 100 is embedded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Stewart for the purpose of updating a BIOS of a system to improve performance of the system, provide it with new functionality, protect the system and/or the BIOS against malicious attacks, and so forth, see [0001]
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Gattini (US 2013/0103389)
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention ass noted but does not disclose subsequent to storing the new hierarchy-issue type association data record, creating an
audit log comprising an indication of changes to the configurable project hierarchy occurring in
response to receiving the request to change the hierarchy level. However, Gattini discloses:
Gattini [0188] Hierarchy builder 1630 optionally employs a DAG builder 1634, which inserts additional nodes into the DMST to form a directed acyclic graph ("DAG") of concepts. An optional interface allows an administrator to view why nodes are placed in the hierarchy where they are and to audit the effects of making changes to the rules used in constructing the hierarchy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings Gattini for the purpose of mapping between a textual representation in a document and a concept, see abstract.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Sturtivant (US 2020/0074329)
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
prior to storing the new hierarchy-issue type association data record, identifying an initial
set of hierarchy-issue type associations based on the configurable project hierarchy;
subsequent to storing the new hierarchy-issue type association data record, identifying a
modified set of hierarchy-issue type associations based on the configurable project hierarchy;
evaluating the initial set of hierarchy-issue type associations against the modified set of
hierarchy-issue type associations to identify a set of non-matched issue type pairs; and
modifying one or more records of the configurable project hierarchy that are associated
with the non-matched issue type pairs to break a set of relationships corresponding to the set of
non-matched issue type pairs within the configurable project hierarchy. However, Sturtivant discloses:
Sturtivant [0032], In some examples, the mobilization UI 130 automates onboarding of non-discoverable bots, ensures data quality, and avoids non-matching data issues. In some examples, the MDS 132 represents any other third-party components (e.g., applications, data stores, services that are not part of the UAP 100), which are used to validate master data as part of bot onboarding to the UAP 100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Sturtivant for the purpose of automating onboarding of non-discoverable bots, ensuring data quality, and avoiding non-matching data issues.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Sturtivant (US 2020/0074329) in view of Ganz (US 2024/0346006)
Combination A in view of Sturtivant discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein modifying the one or more records of the configurable project hierarchy is performed asynchronously; and one or more additional user interactions with the user interface are received prior to modifying all of the one or more records of the configurable project hierarchy. However, Ganz discloses:
Ganz [0013] Some embodiments may also maintain the visibility of system data such that different views of the global DAG are provided depending on the role of a user with respect to a project (or related project in the hierarchy) or the user's prior history in creating or modifying the entities involved. The configuration of system data is dependent upon relationships that may be formed between users.
onboarding to the UAP 100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A in view of Sturtivant to obtain above limitation based on the teachings Ganz for the purpose of collaborative innovation and sharing of related information across servers and across organizations through appropriate graphical representations and augmentations of directed acyclic graphs encoding semantic project structure and related models, see abstract.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2020/0311055) in view of Sievert (US 9,542,292).
Examiner Note: Hereafter, above references are combination A.
causing display, on a user device, of a user interface showing a hierarchical relationship
between a first issue and a second issue;
Zhang [0080] The hierarchy level data 126 includes data in relation to hierarchy levels. Hierarchy levels may be defined in various ways, however in the above example includes an identifier, a name for the hierarchy level, as well as an identifier for the hierarchy level above and an identifier with the hierarchy level below. If a hierarchy level is the highest hierarchy level, then the hierarchy level above may be empty or null. If a hierarchy level is the lowest hierarchy level, then the hierarchy level below will be empty or null.
receiving, from the user device, a request to change a hierarchy level associated with
the first issue to a different hierarchy level, the hierarchical relationship between the first issue
and the second issue defined by the configurable project hierarchy, the hierarchy level and the
different hierarchy level defined by the configurable project hierarchy; and
Zhang [0103] At 514, the ITS client receives the issue type associated notification. The user can then perform various operations regarding the issue type/hierarchy level association that has been created. For example, once an issue type is associated with a hierarchy level a user may wish to change the particular hierarchy level the issue type is associated with—e.g. by moving it from a given level (e.g. base level 0) to a sub-task level (e.g. level −1). A user may also/alternatively want to delete the association.
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store. The method further comprises receiving a request to associate a particular issue type with the new hierarchy level and, in response, creating a new hierarchy/issue type association data record including an identifier of the particular issue type and an identifier of the new hierarchy level identifier.
in response to receiving the request to change the hierarchy level associated with the first issue to the different hierarchy level:
creating a new hierarchy-issue type association data record including:
an identifier for a first issue type of the first issue; and a new hierarchy level identifier corresponding to the different hierarchy level; and
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store. The method further comprises receiving a request to associate a particular issue type with the new hierarchy level and, in response, creating a new hierarchy/issue type association data record including an identifier of the particular issue type and an identifier of the new hierarchy level identifier.
associating the first issue type with the different hierarchy level by storing the new hierarchy-issue type association data record in a data store for the configurable project hierarchy; and
corresponding to the different hierarchy level; and
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store.
in accordance with a determination, based on the new hierarchy-issue type association data record, that the first issue type and a second issue type of the second issue are not hierarchically related via the different hierarchy level, causing an update of the user interface to indicate that no hierarchical relationship between the first issue and the second issue exists, comprising:
Zhang [0077] Lastly, each issue type for the particular project can be associated with a particular hierarchy level (e.g. by creating a new hierarchy/issue type association record for each hierarchy/issue type association, each hierarchy/issue type association record including identifiers of an issue type and the hierarchy that issue type is to be associated with).
Examiner Note: above is not patentable subject matter, see above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
updating display of the user interface to include a set of issues other than the second issue, the set of issues associated with the first issue; and
in response to receiving a user selection of a particular issue of the set of issues, updating display of the user interface to include an additional set of issues associated with the particular issue.
Zhang discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Sievert discloses:
Sievert claim 1, A method comprising: generating a user interface incorporating multiple display interfaces; receiving event data corresponding to one or more issues experienced by multiple Internet services for a plurality of events monitored by an operator; gathering context data for the plurality of events from multiple sources, wherein the context data comprises tasks for managing each of the plurality of events; matching the plurality of events with the context data to generate matched context data; configuring the multiple display interfaces to display the event data and the matched context data, the displaying comprising: displaying the one or more issues experienced by the multiple Internet services, displaying a first incident causing a first issue experienced by a first Internet service of the multiple Internet services and displaying a second incident causing a second issue experienced by a second Internet service of the multiple Internet services, wherein the first incident is related to the second incident;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Sievert for the purpose of receiving event data for a plurality of events monitored by an operator viewing the multiple display interfaces, see abstract.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Bennett (US 7,181,466) in view of Amelchenko (US 2017/0310707).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein prior to creating the new hierarchy-issue type association data record, the method further comprises:
determining whether the new hierarchy level is a topmost hierarchy level or a
bottommost hierarchy level; and
in response to determining that the new hierarchy level is a topmost hierarchy level or
bottommost hierarchy level, evaluating a user permissions associated with a user accessing the
user interface to determine whether the user satisfies a permissions criteria for adding the
topmost hierarchy level or the bottommost hierarchy level.
However, Bennett discloses:
Bennett claim 1 receiving a hierarchical directory containing the display file and displays as created during the initial creation the display file, determining the number of top level folders in this hierarchy, determining the number of sub-folders in the hierarchy, and writing an item to the network repository, when the lowest level of sub-folder has been reached; and storing the converted folders in the network repository such that the stored folders form a hierarchy of folders, directories and subdirectories.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Bennett for the purpose of determining the number of top level folders in this hierarchy.
Arguably, Bennett discloses user permissions associated with a user accessing the topmost hierarch level. However, Amelchenlo discloses:
Amelchenko [0048] Security system 100 may support a plurality of different users and user categories. FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary method 200 by which end-users may interact with other users and register with the security system 100. FIG. 2 depicts three different categories of users. A Database Manager may be an entity that oversees the operation and implementation of security system 100. As such, the Database Manager may be granted a comprehensive set of top-level access permissions to the constituent components and data stored in the security system 100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Amelchenko for the purpose of the system further including one or more verified user profiles stored at the central server, the one or more verified user profiles each containing at least user identity information and one or more verified user credentials, see [0006].
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Bennett (US 7,181,466) in view of Amelchenko (US 2017/0310707).
Combination A in view of Bennett in view of Amelchenko discloses evaluating the user permissions associated with the user to determine whether the user satisfies a permissions criteria for creating the new hierarchy-issue type association data record.
Bennett claim 1 receiving a hierarchical directory containing the display file and displays as created during the initial creation the display file, determining the number of top level folders in this hierarchy, determining the number of sub-folders in the hierarchy, and writing an item to the network repository, when the lowest level of sub-folder has been reached; and storing the converted folders in the network repository such that the stored folders form a hierarchy of folders, directories and subdirectories.
Amelchenko [0048] Security system 100 may support a plurality of different users and user categories. FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary method 200 by which end-users may interact with other users and register with the security system 100. FIG. 2 depicts three different categories of users. A Database Manager may be an entity that oversees the operation and implementation of security system 100. As such, the Database Manager may be granted a comprehensive set of top-level access permissions to the constituent components and data stored in the security system 100.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Bystricky (US 2008/0082803).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein each issue of the one or more other set of issues is displayed proximate to a respective
graphical element indicating whether the issue has been completed. However, Bystricky discloses:
Bystricky [0010] The CPU then executes the higher-priority task 2 in conjunction with the display controller. When task 2 has been successfully completed, the CPU issues a Restore_Interface_States command to the display controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Bystricky for the purpose of indicating completion of a task.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Stewart (US 2020/0159929)
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the window updated display of the user interface includes an issue progress bar comprising a visual representation of a number of issues of the one or more other set of issues that have been completed. Stewart discloses:
Stewart [0019] These graphical updates may include, for example, displaying a progress bar, a percent completion rate, a task being performed, debugging information, and so forth, on a display connected to a system in which BIOS 100 is embedded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Stewart for the purpose of updating a BIOS of a system to improve performance of the system, provide it with new functionality, protect the system and/or the BIOS against malicious attacks, and so forth, see [0001]
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2020/0311055) in view of Sievert (US 9,542,292).
Examiner Note: Hereafter, above references are combination A.
a memory storing executable instructions; and
a processor unit communicably coupled to the memory, wherein upon execution by the
processor unit, the executable instructions are configured to:
Zhang [0027 [0028] [0042]
cause display, on a user device, of a user interface showing a hierarchical relationship
between a first issue and a second issue;
Zhang [0080] The hierarchy level data 126 includes data in relation to hierarchy levels. Hierarchy levels may be defined in various ways, however in the above example includes an identifier, a name for the hierarchy level, as well as an identifier for the hierarchy level above and an identifier with the hierarchy level below. If a hierarchy level is the highest hierarchy level, then the hierarchy level above may be empty or null. If a hierarchy level is the lowest hierarchy level, then the hierarchy level below will be empty or null.
receive, from the user device, a request to change a hierarchy level associated with
the first issue to a different hierarchy level, the hierarchical relationship between the first issue
and the second issue defined by the configurable project hierarchy, the hierarchy level and the
different hierarchy level defined by the configurable project hierarchy; and
Zhang [0103] At 514, the ITS client receives the issue type associated notification. The user can then perform various operations regarding the issue type/hierarchy level association that has been created. For example, once an issue type is associated with a hierarchy level a user may wish to change the particular hierarchy level the issue type is associated with—e.g. by moving it from a given level (e.g. base level 0) to a sub-task level (e.g. level −1). A user may also/alternatively want to delete the association.
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store. The method further comprises receiving a request to associate a particular issue type with the new hierarchy level and, in response, creating a new hierarchy/issue type association data record including an identifier of the particular issue type and an identifier of the new hierarchy level identifier.
in response to receiving the request to change the hierarchy level associated with the first issue to the different hierarchy level:
create a new hierarchy-issue type association data record including:
an identifier for a first issue type of the first issue; and a new hierarchy level identifier corresponding to the different hierarchy level; and
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store. The method further comprises receiving a request to associate a particular issue type with the new hierarchy level and, in response, creating a new hierarchy/issue type association data record including an identifier of the particular issue type and an identifier of the new hierarchy level identifier.
associate the first issue type with the different hierarchy level by storing the new hierarchy-issue type association data record in a data store for the configurable project hierarchy; and
corresponding to the different hierarchy level; and
Zhang abstract, Described herein is a computer implemented method for maintaining a configurable project hierarchy. The method comprises creating a new hierarchy level data record and storing the new hierarchy level data record in a data store.
in accordance with a determination, based on the new hierarchy-issue type association data record, that the first issue type and a second issue type of the second issue are not hierarchically related via the different hierarchy level, causing an update of the user interface to indicate that no hierarchical relationship between the first issue and the second issue exists, comprising:
Zhang [0077] Lastly, each issue type for the particular project can be associated with a particular hierarchy level (e.g. by creating a new hierarchy/issue type association record for each hierarchy/issue type association, each hierarchy/issue type association record including identifiers of an issue type and the hierarchy that issue type is to be associated with).
Examiner Note: above is not patentable subject matter, see above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
update display of the user interface to include a set of issues other than the second issue, the set of issues associated with the first issue; and
in response to receiving a user selection of a particular issue of the set of issues, updating display of the user interface to include an additional set of issues associated with the particular issue.
Zhang discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Sievert discloses:
Sievert claim 1, A method comprising: generating a user interface incorporating multiple display interfaces; receiving event data corresponding to one or more issues experienced by multiple Internet services for a plurality of events monitored by an operator; gathering context data for the plurality of events from multiple sources, wherein the context data comprises tasks for managing each of the plurality of events; matching the plurality of events with the context data to generate matched context data; configuring the multiple display interfaces to display the event data and the matched context data, the displaying comprising: displaying the one or more issues experienced by the multiple Internet services, displaying a first incident causing a first issue experienced by a first Internet service of the multiple Internet services and displaying a second incident causing a second issue experienced by a second Internet service of the multiple Internet services, wherein the first incident is related to the second incident;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Sievert for the purpose of receiving event data for a plurality of events monitored by an operator viewing the multiple display interfaces, see abstract.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Bennett (US 7,181,466) in view of Amelchenko (US 2017/0310707).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
determine whether the new hierarchy level is a bottommost hierarchy level; and
However, Bennett discloses:
Bennett claim 1 receiving a hierarchical directory containing the display file and displays as created during the initial creation the display file, determining the number of top level folders in this hierarchy, determining the number of sub-folders in the hierarchy, and writing an item to the network repository, when the lowest level of sub-folder has been reached; and storing the converted folders in the network repository such that the stored folders form a hierarchy of folders, directories and subdirectories.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Bennett for the purpose of determining the number of top level folders in this hierarchy.
Arguably, Bennett discloses in response to determining that the new hierarchy level is a bottommost hierarchy level, evaluate a user permissions associated with a user accessing the user interface to determine whether the user satisfies a permissions criteria for adding the bottommost hierarchy level. However, Amelchenko discloses:
Amelchenko [0057] Once a user has successfully registered with security system 100 via registration method 200, the user may then fully interact with security system 100, as illustrated in FIG. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Amelchenko for the purpose of the system further including one or more verified user profiles stored at the central server, the one or more verified user profiles each containing at least user identity information and one or more verified user credentials, see [0006].
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Bennett (US 7,181,466) in view of Amelchenko (US 2017/0310707).
evaluate the user permissions associated with the user accessing the user interface to
determine whether the user satisfies a permissions criteria for creating the new hierarchy-issue
type association data record.
Amelchenko [0048] Security system 100 may support a plurality of different users and user categories. FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary method 200 by which end-users may interact with other users and register with the security system 100. FIG. 2 depicts three different categories of users. A Database Manager may be an entity that oversees the operation and implementation of security system 100. As such, the Database Manager may be granted a comprehensive set of top-level access permissions to the constituent components and data stored in the security system 100.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Sekar (US 10,997,195).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein causing the user interface to indicate that second issue has the parent relationship to the first issue includes displaying a window with respect to the second issue including a set of issues to which the second issue is associated, wherein the first issue is included in the set of issues. However, Sekar discloses:
Sekar col 20 line 60 – col 21 line 5, In another source data record, the same attribute combination might say country “France” followed by its city “Paris”. The parser then knows to “treat” them as “parent-child relationship” and issues the automatic “tree-structured SQL” query, without the need for programming. This is possible since the format of the Structured Query Language (SQL) is known ahead of time via the Internal CDMF mapping columns, the act 520 needs to just receive the value “Europe” and it will automatically trace down the tree and get all appropriate Sales numbers for every child and grandchild and so on. This is accomplished without the need for programming by the end user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Sekar for the purpose of receiving data from a plurality of composite data sources, see FIG. 6.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Bystricky (US 2008/0082803).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein each issue of the one or more other set of issues is displayed proximate to a respective
graphical element indicating whether the issue has been completed. However, Bystricky discloses:
Bystricky [0010] The CPU then executes the higher-priority task 2 in conjunction with the display controller. When task 2 has been successfully completed, the CPU issues a Restore_Interface_States command to the display controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Bystricky for the purpose of indicating completion of a task.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Stewart (US 2020/0159929)
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the window updated display of the user interface includes an issue progress bar comprising a visual representation of a number of issues of the one or more other set of issues that have been completed. Stewart discloses:
Stewart [0019] These graphical updates may include, for example, displaying a progress bar, a percent completion rate, a task being performed, debugging information, and so forth, on a display connected to a system in which BIOS 100 is embedded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Stewart for the purpose of updating a BIOS of a system to improve performance of the system, provide it with new functionality, protect the system and/or the BIOS against malicious attacks, and so forth, see [0001]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 23-30, 32-33 and 35-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
This paper is submitted in response to the Office action mailed on January 28, 2026. This paper amends claims 21, 23, 24, 28, 32, 33, and 35, and cancels claims 22, 31, and 34. Claims 1-20 were previously canceled. Accordingly, after entry of this Amendment and Response, claims 21, 23-30, 32, 33, and 35-40 will be pending. Support for the amendments may be found at least in previously pending claims 31 and 34 of the as-filed application. No new matter is added by these amendments.
I. Allowable Subject Matter
The Assignee thanks the Examiner for indicating that claims 26-27, 29-30, 34, and 36-37 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Assignee has incorporated the subject matter identified as allowable from dependent claim 34 (and the limitations of intervening dependent claim 31) into independent claims 21, 28, and 35.
Examiner Responds:
New search and consideration, required the allowable subject matter to be withdrawn.
Applicant Argues:
II. Claim Rejections Under 35 U. S. C. § 112
The Examiner rejected claims 21, 28, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
The Assignee respectfully submits that the amendments to independent claims 21, 28, and 35 submitted herein render the rejections of independent claims 21, 28, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 moot. Additionally, the as-filed Specification, specifically at paras. [0118]-[0120], describes multiple issues (e.g., "issue X," "issue Y," "issue Z"), corresponding at least to a first issue and a second issue. The Specification further describes at para. [0118] that each of the multiple issues may have different issue types (e.g., "issue type A," "issue type B," "issue type C") and that each of the issues may have various hierarchical relationships (e.g., a parent-child relationship, a child-parent relationship) with one or more other issues and issue types. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully submits that the limitations of independent claims 21, 28, and 35 are not indefinite, and respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of independent claim 21, 28, and 35 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Examiner is not persuaded. New rejections under 35 U. S. C. § 112 are presented.
Applicant Argues:
Ill. Claim Rejections Under 35 U. S. C. § 103
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Vlasov et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256474; hereinafter "Vlasov") in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,238,030; hereinafter "Zhang") in view of Bigelow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0234721; hereinafter "Bigelow"). Independent claim 21 has been amended to include subject matter from allowed dependent claim 34 (and intervening dependent claim 31). The Assignee respectfully submits that these amendments result in independent claim 21 reciting allowable subject matter. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 21 be withdrawn and that amended independent claim 21 be allowed.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow. Amended independent claim 21 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 22 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 21. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 22 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 22 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Weber et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0046308; hereinafter "Weber"). Amended independent claim 21 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 23 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 21. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 23 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 23 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Weber in view of Caudron (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0074526; hereinafter "Caudron"). Amended independent claim 21 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 24 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 21. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 24 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 24 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Keith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,943,675; hereinafter
"Keith"). Amended independent claim 21 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 25 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 21. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 25 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 25 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow. Similar to independent claim 21, independent claim 28 has been amended to include subject matter from allowed dependent claim 34 (and intervening dependent claim 31). The Assignee respectfully submits that these amendments result in independent claim 28 reciting allowable subject matter. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 28 be withdrawn and that amended independent claim 28 be allowed.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 28 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Official Notice. Amended independent claim 28 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 31 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 28. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 31 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 31 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Official Notice in view of Caudron. Amended independent claim 28 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 32 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 28. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 32 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 32 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Official Notice in view of Caudron. Amended independent claim 28 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 33 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 28. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 32 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 33 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow. Similar to independent claims 21 and 28, independent claim 35 has been amended to include subject matter from allowed dependent claim 34 (and intervening dependent claim 31). The Assignee respectfully submits that these amendments result in independent claim 35 reciting allowable subject matter. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 35 be withdrawn and that amended independent claim 35 be allowed.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 35 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Official Notice. Amended independent claim 35 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 38 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 35. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 38 be withdrawn.
amended independent claim 35 be allowed.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 38 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Official Notice in view of Caudron. Amended independent claim 35 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 39 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 35. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 39 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 39 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner rejected claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Vlasov in view of Zhang in view of Bigelow in view of Official Notice in view of Caudron. For at least the following reasons, the Assignee respectfully traverses these rejections. Amended independent claim 35 is believed to be allowable for at least the reasons described above. Dependent claim 40 is also believed to be allowable at least for its dependence from allowable base claim 35. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 40 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 40 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ETIENNE PIERRE LEROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-4022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571 272 4080. 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.
/ETIENNE P LEROUX/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights