+1DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 04/03/2025 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 03/17/2026. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results as follows.
2. In response to the last Office Action, no claims are amended, added or canceled. As a result, claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the details are as follows:
Applicant’s argument stated as “Claims 1, 8 and 15 each recite resolving request data items from multiple server-side data stores in real-time, that step is, by definition, rooted in computer technology because it requires networked communication with a plurality of distributed, server-side data stores… Claims 1, 8 and 15 cannot practically be performed in the human mind and therefore are not directed to a mental process …”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees because the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed in a computer environment. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer”). Thus, in Claims 1, 8 and 15, Applicant is merely claiming a mental process performed in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In additional, the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. These include: 1) reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); 2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and 3) Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Claims 1, 8 and 15, as currently drafted, are directed to mental processes of hydrating and presenting one or more GUI elements with resolved data items because the steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use a computer as a tool to display data results after a series of data-gathering steps. The data- gathering activities, including receiving a schema definition and a query, and presenting data results with selected data items constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Applicant further argues that: “The rejection similarly mischaracterizes hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolve items…As used in the art as described in the specification, “hydrating” refers to the programing population of graphical user interface component state with data retrieved from backend sources, a machine operation performed by a rendering engine that binds resolved data to user-interface component state and drives the rendering of the interface, it is not , as the office action suggests, as, an act of aggregating data using pen and paper”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees, because Applicant’s specification did not provide a special meaning or definition to the argued term “hydrating”. Accordingly, the Examiner applied the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with specification, under which the claimed “hydrating” step reasonably encompasses aggregating data elements. In fact, claim 1 in the parent application No. 18/198,747 (Patent no: 12,292,889), recites aggregating resolved data items stored in server-side data stores. Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation is proper. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard: The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description."
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Applicant further argues that: “The parent claims recite the same core subject matter at issue here: a schema definition defining a hierarchy of support types, a query built according to the schema definition, resolution of fields from plurality of server-side data stores, and hydration of user-interface elements presented in an omnichannel communications. The rejection under 35 USC 101 was withdrawn in the parent case…”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees because the pending claims 1, 8 and 15 are significantly boarder in scope than the claims in the parent application. The pending claims omit several limitations that were recited in the parent claims and that the Examiner considered material to the eligibility analysis when withdrawing the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection in the parent application. The pending claims are not commensurate in scope with the parent clams. Furthermore, the determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is made on a claim-by-claim basis. The withdrawal of a § 101 rejection in a parent application does not require withdrawal of a § 101 rejection in a related application where the claims differ in scope or recite different limitations. Because the pending claims are broader than the parent claims and omit limitations that were previously relied upon by the Examiner, Applicant's reliance on the parent application is not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is proper and is maintained.
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the details are as follows:
Applicant’s argument stated as “Starnes does not disclose a schema definition defining supported types for a GUI…the claimed schema definition is an architectural construct that specifies the type system for the GUI data layer, including a hierarchy of supported types and custom object types. A list of commodity-data fields available for a synthetic symbol is not such a schema”.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed schema definition is an architectural construct that specifies the type system for the GUI data layer, including a hierarchy of supported types and custom object types) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 merely recite a schema definition defining supported types for a graphical user interface (GUI). The Examiner applied the broadest reasonable interpretation, under which the claimed “schema definition” reasonably encompasses a definition that defines the structure and organization of data within a database. Starnes discloses receiving or retrieving metadata [e.g. schema definition] to operate a synthetic aggregation wizard 142. Specifically, the Starnes’s system retrieves supported field types from database 124 based on the metadata and returns the supported fields that can be manipulated by the synthetic aggregation wizard to user device(s). The supported fields may include different types of commodity data including oil, metal, livestock, meat, natural resources and/or any other desired type of data, as well as any desired combination of types of data (See Starnes, col 10, lines 10-25; col 17, lines 53-59). Therefore, the cited reference Starnes discloses the argued limitation. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard: The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant’s argument stated as “Starnes does not disclose a query built according to the schema definition…the claim requires a query whose structure is built according to, and thus governed by, the predefined schema definition”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the reasoning set forth in the previous argument applies to this argument. In addition, claim 1 merely recites receiving a query built according to the schema definition. The Starnes’s system receives a user query to create a user-customized filter set for a synthetic symbol based on received metadata that aggregates one or more data fields from database 124 (See Starnes, col 12, lines 20-67 and Figure 5, steps 502-508). The received query is built according to the underlying metadata structure used by the system to generate the customized filter set. Therefore, Starnes discloses the argued limitation.
Applicant’s argument stated as “Starnes does not disclose hydrating GUI elements with the resolved data items and presenting hydrated GUI elements in an omnichannel communication canvas…the claim requires that the hydrated GUI elements themselves be presented within the omnichannel communication canvas, the unified interface in which communications across multiple channels are surfaced”.
In response to Applicant's argument, the Examiner disagrees because claim 1 merely recites presenting hydrated GUI elements in an omnichannel communication canvas. As mentioned in the 35 USC 101 response, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed "hydrating" step reasonably encompasses aggregating data elements. Furthermore, the claimed omnichannel communication canvas is broadly interpreted as a user interface that supports communication across multiple communication channels, such as a chat box, email, text message, or other communication channels with one or more additional users.
The applied reference Starnes teaches hydrating or aggregating one or more data values from data stored in database 124. Specifically, Starnes discloses that the server(s) aggregate one or more aggregated data values associated with a synthetic symbol, including additional or resolved aggregated data and time-series data from flex metadata webserver 118 (See Starnes, col. 12, lines 38-67 and col 13, lines 15-67; Figs. 5, steps 508-512). Starnes further teaches presenting the aggregated data values within regions of an interactive GUI according to a user-customized filter set associated with the synthetic symbol (See Starnes, col. 13, lines 15-67; Fig. 5, step 512). Additionally, the Starnes reference also teaches that the synthetic symbol and its associated data may be shared through an omnichannel communication interface since the Starnes’s system presents field values related to the synthetic symbol and allows a user to create an alias to a query that retrieves data associated with the synthetic symbol, where the alias is shareable through a chat box, email, text message, or any other communication channel with one or more additional users (see Starnes, col. 14, lines 35-55). Therefore, Starnes teaches hydrating GUI elements with the resolved data items and presenting the aggregated data within an omnichannel communication canvas, as broadly claimed. Applicant's argument improperly relies on limitations from the Specification that are not recited in the claims. In particular, Applicant argues that the claimed invention requires hydrating GUI elements through the programmatic population of GUI component state with resolved data. However, the rejected claims do not recite populating GUI component state, resolved data, or any specific client-side implementation of hydration. Instead, the claims broadly recite presenting hydrated GUI elements, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses presenting GUI elements generated from aggregated data. Although claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not imported into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument stated as “Claims 5, 12 and 19 require that the schema definition comprises a hierarchy of supported types including one or more custom object types, a plurality of fields corresponding to each custom object type…”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees. Pursuant to MPEP 2111, the Examiner must give claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under this standard, the claimed “Schema definition” is not limited to Applicant’s narrow interpretation, but rather reasonably encompasses any structural framework that outlines the structure and organization of data within a database. As explained in the 35 USC 102 response above, the Starnes reference discloses retrieving metadata used by the synthetic aggregation wizard 142 to define the supported field types that are available from database 124 and can be manipulated by the user (See Starnes, col 10, lines 10-25; col 17, lines 53-59). The supported field types may include different types of commodity data, such as oil, metal, livestock, meat, natural resources and/or any other custom type of data, as well as any desired combination of types of data (See Starnes, col 10, lines 10-25; col 17, lines 53-59). Furthermore, Starnes explicitly disclose a hierarchy of custom supported types including custom data fields corresponding to each synthetic symbol (See Figures 8A-8D), which are presented in a UIC dictionary 144. The UIC dictionary 144 describes how to render each filed via a drop-down tree menu [e.g., a hierarchy of support types], specifics what the field type is [e.g., string, number], and provides other essential control information for the synthetic aggregation wizard. Therefore, the Starnes reference discloses the argued features.
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.
In claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea for presenting hydrated GUI elements in an omnichannel communication canvas, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer components which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1, recites, in part, a method comprising the following steps:
receiving a schema definition defining supported types for a graphical user interface GUI [e.g. observing a schema data can be performed in the human mind];
receiving a query built according to the schema definition [e.g. observing a query can be performed in the human mind];
resolving requested data items from multiple server-side data stores in real-time [e.g. analyzing or evaluating data items with respect to server-side data stores can be performed in the human mind];
hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items [e.g. aggregating one or more GUI elements with the analyzed data items can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper].
These steps describing the hydration of one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. These steps fall in one of the abstract idea groupings “Method Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”.
The additional element in the claim recites an omnichannel communication canvas, which is recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention that a computer component that presents the resulted GUI elements on a user interface. The additional element is merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer and use a computer as a tool to provide and present a result after a series of data gathering steps performed an abstract idea. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-7 are similar to claim 1 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 2-7 also fall in one of the abstract idea groupings: “Method Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”. Claims 2-7 recite receiving, aggregating and displaying additional objects, which are described at a higher level of generality and are recited as performing computer function used in applications. The additional element, which “provide a unified view of historical user interaction or display a unified view in an omnichannel communication canvas,” merely uses a computer as a tool to provide and present a result after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data-gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Claims 2-7 are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8, recites, in part, a system comprising the following steps:
receiving a schema definition defining supported types for a graphical user interface GUI [e.g. observing a schema data can be performed in the human mind];
receiving a query built according to the schema definition [e.g. observing a query can be performed in the human mind];
resolving requested data items from multiple server-side data stores in real-time [e.g. analyzing or evaluating data items with respect to server-side data stores can be performed in the human mind];
hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items [e.g. aggregating one or more GUI elements with the analyzed data items can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper].
These steps describe for hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. These steps fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Method Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”. The additional element in the claim recites a computer system presenting the hydrated GUI elements in an omnichannel communication canvas, which is recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention that a computer component that presents the resulted GUI elements on a user interface. The additional element is merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to provide and present a result after a series of data-gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data-gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to ineligible subject under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 9-14 are similar to claim 8 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 9-14 also fall in one of the abstract idea groupings: “Method Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”. Claims 9-14 recite receiving, aggregating and displaying additional objects, which are recited at a higher level of generality and are recited as performing computer function used in applications. The additional element, which “provide a unified view of historical user interaction or display a unified view in an omnichannel communication canvas”, merely uses a computer as a tool to provide and present a result after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data-gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, claims 9-14 are directed to ineligible subject under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15, recites, in part, a computer-readable medium comprising the following steps:
receiving a schema definition defining supported types for a graphical user interface GUI [e.g. observing a schema data can be performed in the human mind];
receiving a query built according to the schema definition [e.g. observing a query can be performed in the human mind];
resolving requested data items from multiple server-side data stores in real-time [e.g. analyzing or evaluating data items with respect to server-side data stores can be performed in the human mind];
hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items [e.g. aggregating one or more GUI elements with the analyzed data items can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper].
These steps describe for hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. These steps fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Method Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”. The additional element in the claim recites a computer system presenting the hydrated GUI elements in an omnichannel communication canvas, which is recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention that a computer component that presents the resulted GUI elements on a user interface. The additional element is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to provide and present a result after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 16-20 are similar to claim 15 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 16-20 are also fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Method Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”. Claims 16-20 receiving, aggregating and displaying additional objects are recited at a higher level of generality and are recited as performing computer function used in applications. The additional element, which “provide a unified view of historical user interaction or display a unified view in an omnichannel communication canvas”, merely uses a computer as a tool to provide and present a result after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data-gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, claims 16-20 ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Starnes et al. (US Patent 11,556,526 B1).
Referring to claim 1, Starnes discloses a method comprising:
receiving a schema definition defining supported types for a graphical user interface
(GUI) (See col 10, lines 10-25, receiving or retrieving metadata [e.g. schema definition] to operate a synthetic aggregation wizard 142 [e.g. GUI], the system is retrieving available fields [e.g. supported field types] from database 124 based on the metadata and returning or pushing the supported or available fields that can be manipulated by the synthetic aggregation wizard to user device(s) note in col 17, lines 53-59, the support fields can be different types of commodity data including oil, metal, livestock, meat, natural resources and/or any other desired type of data, as well as any desired combination of types of data);
receiving a query built according to the schema definition (See col 12, lines 20-67 and Figure 5, step 502, the system receives a user query to generate and subscribe to a user-customized synthetic symbol [e.g., a symbol representing the volume of imports and exports of oil between two ports and data related to the vessels that carry to oil via an interactive GUI operating in synthetic aggregation wizard 142);
resolving requested data items from multiple server-side data stores in real-time (See col 12, lines 38-67, col 1, lines 1-67 and Figure 5, steps 504-510, in response to receiving the user request, the user device(s) transmit the user request to one or more servers [e.g., data gateway server] operating within computing environment 100. The server(s) [e.g., flex metadata webservice 118] pulls field values that include symbol-specific attributes that are leveraged as labels by the interactive GUI 146 to enable a user to manipulate data related to the symbol. The server(s) [e.g., flex metadata webservice 118, data gateway server 106 and cache 108] additionally aggregate one or more aggregated data values from the data stored on the database(s) associated with the symbol);
hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items (See col 13, lines 15-67 and Figures 5, step 508-512, the server(s) aggregate one or more aggregated data values from the data stored on the database(s) 124 associated with the synthetic symbol, the server(s) also aggregate data values and time series data associated with the symbol, for example, the server(s) also add values related to hao many vessels are leaving or entering one or more ports to transport oil and how many barrels of oil are sitting at a particular order); and
presenting the hydrated GUI elements (See col 13, lines 15-67 and Figures 5, step 512, presenting the aggregated data values in region(s) of the interactive GUI in accordance with the user-customized filter set associated with the user-customized synthetic symbol) in an omnichannel communications canvas (See col 14, lines 35-55, presenting field values related to a synthetic symbol and allowing user to create alias to a query that pulls data associated with a synthetic symbol, this alias is sharable such that a user can share the alias via a chat box, email, text message , or any communication channel with one or more additional users).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Starnes discloses wherein the schema definition comprises:
a hierarchy of supported types including one or more custom object types; a plurality of fields corresponding to each custom object type (See col 15, lines 1-17, the flex metadata webservice provides characteristics of each field that is available to the front-end applications for each synthetic symbol); and automatically generated documentation for exploring and interacting with an API interface corresponding to the schema definition (See col 15, lines 1-17 col 18, lines 1-67 and Figures 8a-8D, providing a UIC dictionary indicates which datasets are available for aggregation as well as what fields can be used to filter the original content. UIC dictionary 144 may additionally describe how to render each field [drop-down, tree menu {e.g. hierarchy of support types}, radio button], what the field type is (string, number) and other important information to control synthetic aggregation wizard).
Referring to claims 8 and 15, Starnes discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (See para. [0215], para. [0303], the processing system 300 includes one or more processors); and at least one memory storage device storing instructions (See para. [0215] the one or more processors that execute computer readable instructions and non-transitory memory that stores the computer-readable instructions), which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a schema definition defining supported types for a graphical user interface
(GUI) (See col 10, lines 10-25, receiving or retrieving metadata [e.g. schema definition] to operate a synthetic aggregation wizard 142 [e.g. GUI], the system is retrieving available fields [e.g. supported field types] from database 124 based on the metadata and returning or pushing the supported or available fields that can be manipulated by the synthetic aggregation wizard to user device(s) note in col 17, lines 53-59, the support fields can be different types of commodity data including oil, metal, livestock, meat, natural resources and/or any other desired type of data, as well as any desired combination of types of data);
receiving a query built according to the schema definition (See col 12, lines 20-67 and Figure 5, step 502, the system receives a user query to generate and subscribe to a user-customized synthetic symbol [e.g., a symbol representing the volume of imports and exports of oil between two ports and data related to the vessels that carry to oil via an interactive GUI operating in synthetic aggregation wizard 142);
resolving requested data items from multiple server-side data stores in real-time (See col 12, lines 38-67, col 1, lines 1-67 and Figure 5, steps 504-510, in response to receiving the user request, the user device(s) transmit the user request to one or more servers [e.g., data gateway server] operating within computing environment 100. The server(s) [e.g., flex metadata webservice 118] pulls field values that include symbol-specific attributes that are leveraged as labels by the interactive GUI 146 to enable a user to manipulate data related to the symbol. The server(s) [e.g., flex metadata webservice 118, data gateway server 106 and cache 108] additionally aggregate one or more aggregated data values from the data stored on the database(s) associated with the symbol);
hydrating one or more GUI elements with the resolved data items (See col 13, lines 15-67 and Figures 5, step 508-512, the server(s) aggregate one or more aggregated data values from the data stored on the database(s) 124 associated with the synthetic symbol, the server(s) also aggregate data values and time series data associated with the symbol, for example, the server(s) also add values related to hao many vessels are leaving or entering one or more ports to transport oil and how many barrels of oil are sitting at a particular order); and
presenting the hydrated GUI elements in an omnichannel communications canvas (See col 13, lines 15-67 and Figures 5, step 512, presenting the aggregated data values in region(s) of the interactive GUI in accordance with the user-customized filter set associated with the user-customized synthetic symbol) in an omnichannel communications canvas (See col 14, lines 35-55, presenting field values related to a synthetic symbol and allowing user to create alias to a query that pulls data associated with a synthetic symbol, this alias is sharable such that a user can share the alias via a chat box, email, text message , or any communication channel with one or more additional users).
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:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starnes (US Patent 11,556,526 B1) and in view of Tamjidi et al. (US 2021/0248114 A1), hereinafter Tamjidi.
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Starnes does not explicitly disclose accessing a first server-side resolver associated with the first field; accessing a second server-side resolver associated with the second field; and aggregating the resolved data items from the first and second server-side data stores.
Tamjidi discloses determining to resolve a first field using a data item stored in a first server-side data store; determining to resolve a second field using a data item stored in a second server-side data store; accessing a first server-side resolver associated with the first field; accessing a second server-side resolver associated with the second field; and
aggregating the resolved data items from the first and second server-side data stores (See para. [0008], para. [0050], para. [0028], para. [0029] and Figures 1, 2 and 7, receiving a query associated with a custom data-handing script that is handing special data types or fields and resolving the custom data-handing scripts for the referenced filed or type from corresponding data tables from database servers 104A, 104B or etc.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resolving step of Starnes to access a first server-side resolver associated with the first field, accessing a second server-side resolver associated with the second field; and aggregating the resolved data items from the first and second server-side data stores, as taught by Tamjidi. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve user flexibility to customize features without to recompile code or wait for next patch/upgrade of client instance (See Tamjidi, para. [0008]). In addition, both references (Tamjidi and Starnes) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as handling and resolving customized data types. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starnes (US Patent 11,556,526 B1) and in view of Tremblay et al. (US 2022/0343250 A1), hereinafter Tremblay
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Starnes discloses wherein hydrating the one or more GUI elements comprises: receiving a timeline object that includes a list of user touchpoints […]; aggregating the user touchpoints from platform timeline records, interaction timeline
records […] (See col 5, lines 10-15, the synthetic aggregation wizard may be configured to provide more efficient access to non-traditional and disparate datasets in an optimal manner, resulting in user interfaces that quickly render any suitable chart, table, analytic value extremely fast using static, periodic, aperiodic and/or streaming data. For example, in one instance, the synthetic aggregation wizard may be configured to retrieve oil import and export data for one or more ports and display the number of barrels that imported and exported over time [i.e., oil import/export time series information] via the synthetic wizard in a customizable and filterable format) and populating the one or more GUI elements with the aggregated touchpoints to provide a unified view of historical user interactions (See col 13, lines 15-67 and Figures 5, step 508-512, the server(s) [e.g., the history server 110] may be configured to produce historical information aggregation data related to a synthetic symbol that may be leveraged by the server(s) [e.g., the flex middle tier 120] to generate time-series data for a synthetic symbol or varied periods of time [e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly]).
Starnes does not explicitly disclose receiving a timeline object that includes a list of user touchpoints across different systems and aggregating the user touchpoints from external timeline records.
Tremblay discloses receiving a timeline object that includes a list of user touchpoints across different and aggregating the user touchpoints from external timeline records (See para. [0260], the contact timeline 1710 includes a timeline documenting the contact's interaction with the client. The contact timeline may include data from the point in time when the contact was solicited as a lead, when purchases were made by the contact, when tickets were generated on behalf of the contact, when communications were sent to the contact, and the like. Thus, the contact data 1712 and the timeline 1710 provide a rich history of all interactions of the contact with the client, over the lifecycle of a relationship. As a result, an individual, such as a salesperson or service professional, can understand and reference that history to provide relevant communications. More generally, the contact data 1712 may include any data that is relevant to the contact with respect to client. The contact data 1712 may include demographic data, geographic data [e.g., address, city, state, country], conversation data [e.g., references to communications that were engaged in with the client], contact information [e.g., phone number, email address, user name and the like]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the timeline object of Starnes to include a list of user touchpoints across different systems and aggregating the user touchpoints from external timeline records, as taught by Tremblay. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a rich history of all interactions and allow an individual to understand and reference that history to provide relevant communications (See Tremblay, para. [0260]). In addition, both references (Tremblay and Starnes) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as a multi-service business platform system having custom workflow actions. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Starnes discloses wherein presenting the hydrated GUI elements (See col 13, lines 15-67 and Figures 5, step 512, presenting the aggregated data values in region(s) of the interactive GUI in accordance with the user-customized filter set associated with the user-customized synthetic symbol) comprises: receiving user symbol data implementing endpoints for integrating the user symbol data with communication platform data; generating a unified profile object accessible via server-side APIs; and displaying the unified symbol object in the omnichannel communications canvas (See col 14, lines 35-55, presenting field values related to a synthetic symbol and allowing user to create alias to a query that pulls data associated with a synthetic symbol, this alias is sharable such that a user can share the alias via a chat box, email, text message , or any communication channel with one or more additional users).
Starnes does not explicitly receive user profile data obtained from multiple external systems.
Tremblay discloses receive user profile data obtained from multiple external system (See para. [0179], para. [0182] and para. [0219], the system obtains a recipient profile from user system(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the symbol object of Starnes to include user profile data, as taught by Tremblay. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the traditional templated bulk messages, merely including a recipient’s name, address, or organization name in one or more template fields does not constitute a personalized message (See Tremblay, para. [0179]). In addition, both references (Tremblay and Starnes) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as a multi-service business platform system having custom workflow actions. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Starnes retrieving interaction data including communication channels and participants; accessing user profile data and topic information associated with the interaction.
Tremblay discloses receiving an interaction identifier (See para. [0487], a unique ID that idenfies the transaction); retrieving interaction data including communication channels and participants (See para, [0962], the platform has a unified event system such that users can define their own events, for example, the system determines how a user interacts with a customer indicating who may be interacting with the user’s business such that some events may be triggering as a result of that interaction); accessing user profile data and topic information associated with the interaction (See para. [0196], the platform accesses a given profile data to match interesting topics); and
aggregating the interaction data, user profile data, and topic information to provide
context for the interaction (See para. [0287] and Figures 21-23, the portal GUI presents a ticket’s timeline, detailed notes about different contact points with the contact, the name and information of a contact, a data on which the ticket was issued, what articles were opened by a contact with respect to the ticket, communications that were undertaken with the contact, and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Starnes to aggregate interaction data, user profile data, and topic information to provide context for the interaction, as taught by Tremblay. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the traditional templated bulk messages, merely including a recipient’s name, address, or organization name in one or more template fields does not constitute a personalized message (See Tremblay, para. [0179]). In addition, both references (Tremblay and Starnes) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as a multi-service business platform system having custom workflow actions. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 7 and 14, Starnes does not explicitly disclose a detailed view of an interaction.
Tremblay discloses a detailed view of an interaction; media associated with one or more communication channels; a timeline showing previous interactions; and
user profile information retrieved from external systems and integrated with
communication platform data (See para. [0287] and Figures 21-23, the portal GUI presents a ticket’s timeline, detailed notes about different contact points with the contact, the name and information of a contact, a data on which the ticket was issued, what articles were opened by a contact with respect to the ticket, communications that were undertaken with the contact, and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Starnes to include a detailed view of an interaction, as taught by Tremblay. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the traditional templated bulk messages, merely including a recipient’s name, address, or organization name in one or more template fields does not constitute a personalized message (See Tremblay, para. [0179]). In addition, both references (Tremblay and Starnes) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as a multi-service business platform system having custom workflow actions. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Conclusion
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 YUK TING CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, AMY NG can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
YUK TING CHOI
Examiner
Art Unit 2153
/YUK TING CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights