DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 11/21/25 wherein:
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 20 are currently pending;
Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 12, 13, and 15-19 are cancelled.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in response determining that a current process gateway does not need to process at least one part of the at least one piece of business data according to predefined distribution rules” should read, “in response to determining that a current process gateway does not need to process at least one part of the at least one piece of business data according to predefined distribution rules.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 20 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 1 refers to “the processor executing the process dispatch module,” “the processor executing the locator module,” and “the processor executing the retriever module” which is confusing. There only seems to be one processor claimed. Therefore, it is unclear why four different processors are identified (including a generic “processor”). Further, the named processors lack antecedent basis. Claim 11 is rejected on a similar basis.
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, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 11 recites a method, and therefore, also falls into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
a server, comprises a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a plurality of program modules comprising a process dispatch module, a locator module and a retriever module; and
a plurality of computer devices, wherein the computer devices are configured to perform a plurality of business behaviors respectively, wherein the server is configured to implement business process operation through network communications with the computer devices,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the plurality of program modules to implement a business process management method, the method comprising:
performing a flow processing of business data according to a plurality of process gateways disposed in an original business process, wherein the performed plurality of business behaviors are respectively represented by the plurality of process gateways, and wherein the business data is transmitted between the server and the computer devices via network communication during the flow processing;
in response determining that a current process gateway does not need to process at least one part of the at least one piece of business data according to predefined distribution rules, performing the following steps:
(a) extracting, by the processor, the at least one part of the at least one piece of business data based on the predefined distribution rules;
(b) separately notating, by the processor, for the extracted at least one part, a data structure comprising an original process name, an original process gateway name, and an expected target process gateway name for a new business process;
(c) grouping the extracted at least one part of the at least one piece of business data from step (a) to generate at least one business data group;
(d) initiating at least one new business process corresponding to the generated at least one business data group, wherein the original business process and the at least one new business process are composed of the same process gateways, a number of the at least one new business process is the same as a number of the at least one business data group, and the at least one new business process is configured to directly process the business data at the notated expected target process gateway without processing through preceding process gateway;
(e) dispatching, by the processor executing the process dispatch module, the at least one business data group to the initiated at least one new business process;
(f) locating, by the processor executing the locator module, the dispatched at least one business data group to the notated expected target process gateway in the at least one new business process based on the notated data structure, thereby bypassing any preceding process gateways in the new business process to continue the flow processing, wherein bypassing comprises directly transmitting the business data group via the network to a computer device corresponding to the expected target process gateway without routing the business data group to computer devices corresponding to the preceding process gateways; and
(g) retrieving and suspending, by the processor executing the retriever module, the original business process in response to determining that all business data in the original business process has been processed or distributed to the initiated at least one new business process and the original business process carries no business data, thereby saving consumption of system resources
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claim may be summarized as a business data flow process. Specification ¶2. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a server, comprising a processor and a memory, a plurality of computer devices, various processors, and a network. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the implied “transmitting” limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the claimed steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the implied “transmitting” limitation, i.e., the “network communications”) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 8, 10, 14, 18, and 20 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 and claim 11 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 4, 8, 10, 14, 18, and 20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by performing the grouping according to a respective business logic, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 further provide further descriptive limitations, describing the gateways as corresponding to different business scenarios, which may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, but do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Present Status/Description of Amendments
Examiner notes both sections and thanks Applicant for a thorough review of the amendments.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101
The Claims are directed to an Abstract Idea (Step 2A)
A. The Claims are Not Directed to a Specific Improvement in a Technical Field, But are an Abstract Method of Organizing Human Activity
Applicant argues that the Office mischaracterizes the claimed invention as a method of organizing human activity due to a “misinterpretation of the term ‘Business’ in BPMN.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that there is no basis for this alleged misinterpretation. The term BPMN only appears in the preamble of the independent claims, only seems to recite the intended use of the system, and receives little patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.02).
Applicant argues that the invention is directed to a “specific improvement to this technical field,” as described in the Specification at [0002], as when multiple business data need to be processed at the same gateway, the data must wait for all data in the same gateway to be processed before moving to the next gateway, resulting in time costs. Applicant argues that this is a technical problem of “processing latency and system inefficiency.” Remarks 11. However, nowhere in the Specification is this problem identified, or considered. Without having identified such a problem, it is unclear how the solution to this problem can be specifically identified and claimed.
An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. MPEP 2106.05(a). For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The instant invention is similar to Affinity Labs in that the Specification fails to provide technical details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to Enfish where the claims were found to be non-abstract because they were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, and that the Enfish court focused on how the claimed self-referential table improved computer technology. Remarks 11. Applicant argues the instant claims are similar because they “improve how a BPMN process engine operates by elimination processing bottlenecks and optimizing resource consumption.” Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The court in Enfish determined that the self-referential table recited in the claims is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. This was supported by the Specification, which included specific technical details and identified the technical problem and the technical solution. The instant invention is not similar to the Enfish case in that technical details are not provided.
B. The Claimed Ordered Combination is Not a Specific Technical Implementation
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a “specific, ordered, and integrated combination of steps that are inextricably linked” and summarizes three steps performed by the system which is argued to be a “concrete technical implementation.” Remarks 11-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(e) states, “When evaluating whether additional elements meaningfully limit the judicial exception, it is particularly critical that examiners consider the additional elements both individually and as a combination.” Applicant is not just considering the additional elements identified in the claim, but the abstract elements, and even the intended result of step 3, as well. The claims have been considered as a whole (see the Rejection, supra), and are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
C. The Claimed Solution is Not Analogous to Example 40
Applicant argues that as Example 40 provided a specific improvement over prior art systems by integrating the mental process into a practical application, the instant claims should also provide a practical application. Remarks 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 40, the claim recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic, and collecting additional data under particular conditions, which provided a specific improvement over prior art systems. However, Applicant’s claims do not have such a combination of additional elements which results in a specific improvement over prior art systems.
The Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
Applicant argues that the inventive concept is found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the claimed elements – the central server executing specific modules to dynamically create, route, and manage parallel processes across distributed computer devices is a non-conventional architecture for BPMN systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In BASCOM, even though the court found that all of the additional elements in the claim recited generic computer network or Internet components, the elements in combination amounted to significantly more because of the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provided a technical improvement in the art. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (2016). Again, it is the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements which may provide a technical improvement in the art. Applicant has not shown such a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.
Applicant then argues that the solution is “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” similar to DDR Holdings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem of latency is not a technical problem unique to networked computers; rather, latency may be a problem in any computer, or even in a business process.
Applicant then argues that the specific recitation of the various modules, the creation of a data structure for routing, and the steps recited in the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea, in that these features are not merely well-understood, routine, or conventional activities. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), “[a]nother consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” It is the additional elements which must be considered when evaluating whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, not the abstract idea.
Conclusion
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626