DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1,8 and 15 have overcome each and every rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous office action mailed on 07/01/2025. Therefore the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 that Myers et al. does not teach, the execution results and the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be denied, with the machine learning model, to predict a final result for the automation request and identifying a third quantity of the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be denied; determining a final quantity by removing the second quantity and the third quantity from the first quantity; comparing the final quantity with a threshold quantity associated with the final result; determining whether to approve or deny the automation request based on the comparison of the final quantity, have been fully considered but not found persuasive and in moot in view of newly cited references Ishisaka et al. and JP73. Examiner’s answer is provided below:
For the first argument, Myers et al. is not used to determine the denial of the workflow based on encryption keys and workflow portions rather cited prior art Mohammed et al. was used. Mohammed et al. explicitly teaches in Col.7 lines 1-18 and Col.18 lines 25-27 and Col.3 lines 5-10 and 51-54 that (the server checks whether the workflow created has valid encryption and workflow portion (allocated production quota and if the encryption does not match or the production quota of the workflow exceeds the allocated production quota, the workflow is denied that is the server do not authorize the user's request to produce the secured object that is the workflow. However Mohammed et al. and Myers et al. does not teach the details for first quantity, second quantity and third quantity and determining final quantity by removing the second quantity and third quantity from the first quantity and comparing first quantity to threshold to determine approve or deny of the automation request. This argument is in moot in view of newly cited references Ishisaka et al. and JP73 in view of previously cited prior arts of record. Newly cited prior art Ishisaka et al. explicitly teaches in [0042]-[0047], assigning positive scores (first quantity) to actions taken correctly during an automated driving of a vehicle (automated workflow) and negative scores assigned to actions to performed correctly (error, second quantity) to determine skill level of the occupant which is used by the vehicle to determine level of automation required to drive the vehicle. The skill level is (final score) is a cumulative value of positive and negative scores for various actions performed correctly, actions not performed correctly and action not taken at all. Then the skill level/final score is compared with threshold to determine what level of automation is required to drive the vehicle that is determining whether to approve the workflow based on cumulative number of correct/valid, wrong (error) actions when compared to a threshold. If the skill level is above threshold approve the automation request to operate in lowered automation rank (workflow for automated driving) but the if the skill level is below threshold, deny the request of operating in lower automation rank (workflow for automated driving). As such Ishisaka et al. explicitly teaches to deny or approve a workflow based on final result compared to threshold. However Neither Myers et al., Mohammed et al., Ishisaka et al. or any other cited prior art of record explicitly teaches a third quantity for jobs to be denied. Newly cited reference JP73 teaches to determine data related to unapproved (denied) data (quantity) in a workflow system and remove the unapproved (denied ) data from the final processing sequence deleted or removed to move forward with the approval workflow system as taught in page 4, 1st paragraph. Therefore it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of denying or approving a workflow based on final quantity as taught by combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al., Yang et al. and Ishisaka et al. by applying the known concept of determining a quantity of denied portion in a workflow to determine final approval of the workflow as taught by JP73 as an improvement to the final value to yield predictable results for determining to allow or deny the workflow based on valid, error and denied portions in a workflow.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,8 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities.
For claims 1, 8 and 15, the phrase, “…execute, based on the computed plugin…” needs to be replaced with “…execute, based on the computed plugin parameters…”, to be consistent with rest of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3,5-8,10-11,14-16,18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Myers et al. (US 20210073026 A1) in view of Mohammed et al. (US
11,480,945 B2) and SHI et al. (US 20200125393 A1) in further view of Yang et al. (US
20190129734 A1) and Ishisaka et al. (US 20190283774 A1) and JP73 (JP 2008310773 A).
The teachings of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al. and Yang et al. as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Regarding claim 1 Myers et al. teaches, a method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processing units (computer), workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow (receiving by a computer a workflow from a user where the workflow specifies a set of
computer operations to automate a task, [0008], and [0034], see also [0107]);
requesting, by one or more processing units, a plurality of jobs associated
with the workflow data (workflow received by the computer can specify data to be
acquired and conditions to be evaluated (plurality of jobs) which can result in different
sets of operations being performed by the computer system, [0008] and [0034], see also
[0107]);
processing, by the one or more processing units, the execution results and
the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be denied (workflow with error,
[0183]), with a machine learning model, to predict a final result for the automation
request (using a machine learning model, the workflows are tested to determine whether the workflow will perform without errors. If error is detected in any of the steps,
the machine learning model will explore options to resolve the error and test the modified workflow for error. If the modified workflow meets all the criterions, the
workflow is published to run, [0144] and [0183], see also [0187]);
wherein the input parameters of job templates are associated with the
plurality of encrypted jobs (" ... In some cases, one or more workflows1 represent a
template of operations to be customized for a particular server environment. For
example. a workflow may include one or more fields that can be filed. customized. Or modified. In this example, the one or more fields may be empty and may need to be
filled in, e.g., by the user 124 using the user device 1222. In this example, the one or
more fields may have default values that are automatically set, e.g., by the workflow
publishing server 110, or by are set by a user, e.g., the administrator 104 through the
administrator device 102 ... ", [0100]); and
performing, by the one or more processing units, one or more actions
based on the final result (publishing the tested workflow to run/executed, [0187] and
[0127]), wherein performing the one or more actions comprises at least one of:
providing the final result for display (the user can view information related to workflow in a monitor, [0209]),
retraining the machine learning model based on the final result (trained neural network performing workflow analysis, [0188]),
modifying the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be denied to generate modified encrypted jobs (machine learning model analyzes the workflow with set of instructions -plurality of jobs to check whether any error will occur if the workflow is executed. If during analysis, error is found, the machine learning model explore options to resolve the error and modifies the workflow, [0187] and [0034]);
executing the modified encrypted jobs to generate additional execution results (the machine learning model further analyzes the modified workflow to check for
error, [0187]), processing the execution results and the additional execution results, with the machine learning model, to predict a modified final result for the automation request (the machine learning model further analyzes the modified workflow to check for error, [0187]), and
performing one or more additional actions based on the modified final result (based on analysis of the modified workflow, the workflow is either published (no error found during analysis) or block-denied, [0187]).
Myers et al. does not explicitly teach the details of encrypting the received jobs, determining whether a plurality of encryption keys associated with the plurality of
encrypted jobs are valid; determining, by the one or more processing units, whether a
plurality of workflow portions associated with the plurality of encrypted jobs are valid;
determining, by the one or more processing units, states associated with the plurality of
workflow portions that are valid and consistent with the workflow, wherein the plurality of
workflow portions comprises a first workflow portion and a second workflow portion, and
wherein consistency and validity of states associated with the first workflow portion and
the second workflow portion are determined by: determining that a first state of the first
workflow indicates execution of the first workflow prior to execution of the second workflow; verifying consistency of a second state of the second workflow with the first
state of the first workflow by determining that the second state indicates that the
execution of the second workflow is based on the execution of the first workflow; and
determining the validity of the states associated with the first workflow portion and
the second workflow portion based on the verification of the consistency; determining,
by the one or more processing units, whether to allow or deny each of the plurality of
encrypted jobs based on whether the plurality of encryption keys are valid and based on
whether the plurality of work flow portions are valid; executing, by the device, the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be allowed, to generate execution results;
forgoing, by the one or more processing units, execution of the plurality of encrypted
jobs determined to be denied and computing plugin parameters for plugins identified to
execute the plurality of encrypted jobs based on populating input parameters of job
templates; and wherein the input parameters are determined to be allowed based on job
mappings; and executing a plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be allowed based on the computed plugin parameters, wherein the processing further comprises: denied,
identifying a first quantity of the execution results that are valid, identifying a second quantity of the execution results that generate errors, identifying a third quantity of the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be determining a final quantity by removing the second quantity and the third quantity from the first quantity, comparing the final quantity with a threshold quantity associated with the final result, determining whether to approve or deny the automation request based on the comparison of the final quantity. However Meyers explicitly teaches in [0127], [0138], [0187] and [0188] and other instances to run validation test for the received workflows, and if the received workflow passes all the criterions, the workflow will be published for execution. But if the workflow generates error during testing, the machine learning model modifies the workflow if possible, to resolve the error and then publishes the modified workflow for execution but if workflow with error cannot be further modified, the workflow is not published and removed from execution. The validation criterions can include conditions to check for encryption and workflow portion.
Mohammed et al. teaches, encrypted jobs (a workflow created by user is
associated by a Job token and the job token is encrypted for authorization control, Col.2
lines 50-66);
determining, by the one or more processing units, whether a plurality of
encryption keys associated with the plurality of encrypted jobs are valid (using the
key provided by the user, the system with server validates the encryption of the Job
token an if the key matches the job token encryption, the job token is decrypted for
execution of the workflow. Also, each copy of the product is a job. Multiple copies are
multiple/plurality of jobs in workflow3 ,Col.3 lines 5-10, 51-54 and Col.4 lines 5-15, see
also Col.5 lines 55- 66);
determining, by the one or more processing units, whether a plurality of
workflow portions associated with the plurality of encrypted jobs are valid
(requested number of copies (workflow portions) are compared to the allocated production quota for the user created the workflow having requested number of copies
and if the requested number of copies match the allocated production quota, the
workflow is validated for workflow portions, Col. 7 lines 1-18 and Col.8 lines 49-59);
determining, by the one or more processing units, whether to allow or deny
each of the plurality of encrypted jobs based on whether the plurality of
encryption keys are valid and based on whether the plurality of workflow portions
are valid (the server checks whether the workflow created has valid encryption and
workflow portion (allocated production quota and if the encryption does not match or the
production quota of the workflow exceeds the allocated production quota, the workflow
is denied that is the server do not authorize the user's request to produce the secured
object4, Col. 7 lines 1-18 and 25-27 and Col.3 lines 5-10, 51-54);
executing, by the device, the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be
allowed, to generate execution results (if the server determines the workflow
matches allocated production quota, the server authorizes the user's request to produce
the object and transmits authorization to the authorized production device to produce
the secure object as per the user's request, Col. 7 lines 1 -17);
forgoing, by the device, execution of the plurality of encrypted jobs
determined to be denied (" ... If the user has expired the number of copies requested
or if the quota would be exceeded, the server does not authorize the user's request to
produce the secure object ... ", Col 5 lines 25-27, that is the workflow is denied.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of receiving the workflow data identifying an automation request, performing validation test
for workflow automation before execution using machine learning model as taught by
Myers et al. by applying the known technique of including the validation of workflow
automation to encrypt the workflow and check whether the encryption is valid and the
workflow portions associated with the workflow is valid as taught by Mohammed et al.
as in improvement to workflow validation to yield predictable results of securely creating
and executing workflows without errors.
Neither in combination nor individually Myers et al. and Mohammed et al. teach
the details of determining, by the one or more processing units, states associated with
the plurality of workflow portions that are valid and consistent with the workflow, wherein
the plurality of workflow portions comprises a first workflow portion and a second
workflow portion, and wherein consistency and validity of states associated with the first
workflow portion and the second workflow portion are determined by: determining that a
first state of the first workflow indicates execution of the first workflow prior to execution
of the second workflow; verifying consistency of a second state of the second workflow
with the first state of the first workflow by determining that the second state indicates
that the execution of the second workflow is based on the execution of the first
workflow; and determining the validity of the states associated with the first workflow
portion and the second workflow portion based on the verification of the consistency;
and based on determining that the states associated with the plurality of workflow
portions are valid and consistent with the workflow and computing plugin parameters for
plugins identified to execute the plurality of encrypted jobs based on populating input
parameters of job templates, wherein the input parameters of job templates are associated with the plurality of encrypted jobs; and wherein the input parameters are
determined to be allowed based on job mappings; and executing a plurality of encrypted
jobs determined to be allowed based on the plugin parameters, identifying a first quantity of the execution results that are valid, identifying a second quantity of the execution results that generate errors, identifying a third quantity of the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be determining a final quantity by removing the second quantity and the third quantity from the first quantity, comparing the final quantity with a threshold quantity associated with the final result, determining whether to approve or deny the automation request based on the comparison of the final quantity. However, Myers et al. teaches in [0054] when a workflow is created a description of operations to be performed by the workflow is provided. The operations will have various states from
start state till the end/completion state of operations for the workflow. Also Mohammed
et al. teaches in Col.7 lines 1-26, the user received workflow has workload which is
compared with allocated workload (allocated production quota) for the user to ensure
the user created workflow has permissible/consistent amount of workload.
SHI et al. teaches, determining, by the one or more processing units (server,
[0065]), states associated with the plurality of workflow portions (states/stages)
that are valid and consistent with the workflow (a workflow for an online purchase
delivery event comprises series of stages/states, where each state is a portion of the
workflow. Each subsequent state is triggered by the completion of the preceding state,
ensuring consistency and validation of each state, [0065] and [0070]),
wherein the plurality of workflow portions comprises a first workflow
portion and a second workflow portion (the workflow for online purchase-delivery
event has multiple states starting with state 1 waiting for order and ending with state 4
for delivery, [0065] and [0074]), and wherein consistency and validity of states
associated with the first workflow portion and the second workflow portion are
determined by:
determining that a first state of the first workflow portion indicates
execution of the first workflow prior to execution of the second workflow (once the order has been placed, that is the state 1 is executed and completed, the workflow
moves to state 2 which is order received, [0074], [0093] and [0141]);
verifying consistency of a second state of the second workflow portion
with the first state of the first workflow portion by determining that the second
state indicates that the execution of the second workflow portion is based on the
execution of the first workflow portion (once the order has been received state is 2
completed, the workflow moves to state 3 that is retrieving the product of order from the
storage. Then once retrieved, state 3 is completed, workflow moves to state 4 which is
delivery of the retrieved product per order placed to the recipient, and then after delivery
confirmation (verified by blockchain transaction which updated by delivery company) the
workflow moves to state 1 waiting for order. Each state is verified by the blockchain
transaction and each of the state takes place only after completion of the preceding
state, [0074],[0093] and [0141]); and
determining the validity of the states associated with the first workflow
portion and the second workflow portion based on the verification of the
consistency (each of the states, state 1-state 4 proceeds one after another. When
state 1 is completed and verified by updated blockchain transaction, workflow moves to
subsequent state 2 since preceding state is completed and verified by updated
blockchain transaction. These steps are repeated until workflow moves to state 4-
delivery than cycles back to state 1 of workflow-waiting for order to be received. States
2-4 cannot take place until state 1 is confirmed and completed, [0074],[0093] and
[0141]);
and based on determining that the states associated with the plurality of workflow portions are valid and consistent with the workflow (each state is verified
by the blockchain transaction and each of the state takes place only after completion of
the preceding state, [0074], [0093] and [0141], see also [0085] and [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of
automating a workflow as taught by combination of Myers et al. and Mohammed et al.
by applying the known technique of determining and verifying the consistency of the
states of the workflow as taught by SHI et al. as an improvement to the automated
workflow to yield predictable results of executing a workflow with enhanced efficiency as
taught by SHI et al. in [0027].
Neither in combination nor individually Myers et al., Mohammed et al. and SHI et
al. teach the details of computing plugin parameters for plugins identified to execute the
plurality of encrypted jobs based on populating input parameters of job templates, and
executing a plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be allowed based on the plugin
parameters, However Myers et al. teaches in [0038] and [0187] to identify plugin which
will be used by the workflow and modify the plugin configuration based on workflow
template, identifying a first quantity of the execution results that are valid, identifying a second quantity of the execution results that generate errors, identifying a third quantity of the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be determining a final quantity by removing the second quantity and the third quantity from the first quantity, comparing the final quantity with a threshold quantity associated with the final result, determining whether to approve or deny the automation request based on the comparison of the final quantity.
Kang et al. teaches, wherein the executing further comprising: identify plugins to execute the plurality of encrypted jobs which are determined to be allowed (when request/workflow5 is received from the workflow engine, the request includes ID of plugin to be used by the request/workflow, input (data variables) parameters and method variable values to be used by the plugin, [0021],[0028], [0029]);
populate input parameters of job templates associated with the plurality of
encrypted jobs which are determined to be allowed based on job template mappings (based on the input parameters provided by the request/workflow6/class definition objects, the plugin parameters of the plugin template are mapped in association with the inputs parameters and method parameters of the request/workflow/class definition objects, [0029] and [0030]);
compute plugin parameters for plugins identified to execute the plurality of encrypted jobs based on populating input parameters of job templates (when request/workflow7 is received from the workflow engine, the request includes ID of plugin to be used by the request/workflow, input (data variables) parameters and method variable values to be used by the plugin. The plugin interface template maps the given input parameters with the plugin input parameters and determines the output the plugin needs to output when executing the request/workflow, [0021], [0028], [0029], [0034]), and
execute, based on computed plugin parameters, a plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be allowed (after the plugin is mapped, the plugin is executed and the determined outputs for the workflow/request are returned to the data collection
application with workflow engine, [0042] and [0054]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device automating
workflows where the executed workflows use plugins as taught by combination of Myers
et al., Mohammed et al. and SHI et al. to compute plugin parameters identified by the
workflow/request based on the input parameters of the job template of the workflow and
executing the workflow using the identified plugin as taught by Yang et al. as an
improvement to workflow customization to yield predictable results of workflow
execution.
Neither in combination nor individually Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al. and Yang et al. teach wherein the processing further comprises: denied,
identifying a first quantity of the execution results that are valid, identifying a second quantity of the execution results that generate errors, identifying a third quantity of the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be determining a final quantity by removing the second quantity and the third quantity from the first quantity, comparing the final quantity with a threshold quantity associated with the final result, determining whether to approve or deny the automation request based on the comparison of the final quantity.
Ishisaka et al. teaches, wherein the processing further comprises:
identifying a first quantity of the execution results that are valid (positive score (first quantity) when proper action is taken (valid execution result) by the user during automated driving, [0042]),
identifying a second quantity of the execution results that generate errors (negative score (second quantity) when proper action not taken for the requested task (execution result with error), [0043]),
determining a final quantity by removing the second quantity and the third quantity from the first quantity (skill level (final result) is determined based on cumulative scores of positive and negative scores associated with each action. The negative scores (second and third quantity since cumulative scores) are subtracted (remove) from the final value of the skill level associated with the automated driving (workflow), [0042],[0043] and [0046]),
comparing the final quantity with a threshold quantity associated with the final result (the final value of the skill level is compared with threshold, if the final value is above threshold, the request for driving at lower automated driving rank in denied since more advanced rank automated driving is needed (automated driving workflow denied) and if the cumulative final value of skill level is below threshold, the request from automated driving at lower rank is approved (automated driving workflow allowed) [0046]-[0047],[0077] and [0101]),
determining whether to approve or deny the automation request based on the comparison of the final quantity (the final value of the skill level is compared with threshold, if the final value is above threshold, the request for driving at lower automated driving rank in denied since more advanced rank automated driving is needed (automated driving workflow denied) and if the cumulative final value of skill level is below threshold, the request from automated driving at lower rank is approved (automated driving workflow allowed) [0046]-[0047],[0077] and [0101]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for determining allowing or denying a workflow as taught by combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al. and Yang et al. by applying the known concept of determining a final value of removing quantities related to valid/error/not correct portions and comparing with threshold to determine whether to allow or deny the workflow as taught by Ishisaka et al. as an improvement to the final quantity to yield predictable results of determining whether to allow or deny workflow based on number of valid and incorrect workflow quantities.
Neither in combination nor individually Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al., Yang et al. and Ishisaka et al. teach identifying a third quantity of the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be denied.
JP73 teaches, identifying a third quantity of the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be denied (determine data related to unapproved (denied) data (quantity) in a workflow system and remove the unapproved (denied ) data from the final processing sequence deleted or removed to move forward with the approval workflow system, page 4 1st paragraph).
Therefore it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of denying or approving a workflow based on final quantity as taught by combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al., Yang et al. and Ishisaka et al. by applying the known concept of determining a quantity of denied portion in a workflow to determine final approval of the workflow as taught by JP73 as an improvement to the final value to yield predictable results for determining to allow or deny the workflow based on valid, error and denied portions in a workflow.
Ishisaka et al. teach:
[0042] In a case where a proper action (vehicle operation) has been taken for a
requested task by the vehicle occupant, an evaluation result of the proper action is
converted into a positive score (positive conversion), by which a skill level can be
obtained in a form of a cumulative value of scores.
[0043] In contrast, in a case where a proper action has not been taken for the
requested task, an evaluation result of not having taken a proper action is
converted into a negative score (negative conversion), by which a skill level can
be obtained based on a result of subtraction from the cumulative value of scores.
[0077] A skill level is specific information that is associated with each user, and a
skill level that is based on a history of past performed drives can be inherited. In a
case where a skill level of a user having a user ID “aa” has already exceeded a
threshold value, the control unit C12 performs travel control such that an
automated driving function in the more advanced control state is released. In
contrast, in a case where the skill level of the user having the user ID “aa” is equal
to or lower than the threshold value, the control unit C12 limits the automated
driving function in the more advanced control state. For example, even in a case
where the user having the user ID “aa” uses a car sharing system to drive the
vehicle A or the vehicle B, the skill level based on a history of past drives
performed by the user having the user ID “aa” can be inherited.
JP73 teach:
(page 4, 1st paragraph)…And the application data in the unapproved data table is deleted to complete the rejection process. In the case of notification, deletes the application data corresponding to the processing sequence number of the unapproved data table, an ERP system…
Regarding claim 2 combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka and JP73 teach the method of claim 1. In addition, Myers et al. teaches, wherein the workflow data includes data identifying a workflow diagram with one or more nodes and interconnections between the one or more nodes (" ... the workflow listing 114a may contain metadata for each of the workflows within the listing. The metadata may include a name of the workflow, a purpose of the workflow or an error that the workflow addresses, a description of the operations within the workflow8 (e.g., which may also include required conditions for operation performance ... ", [0086]).
Regarding claim 3 combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka and JP73 teach the method of claim 1. In addition, Mohammed et al. teaches, wherein determining whether the plurality of workflow portions associated with the plurality of encrypted jobs are valid comprises: comparing each of the plurality of workflow portions with information stored in a workflow data structure (each workflow with number of copies of object (plurality of jobs) is compared with allocated production quota, and if the requested number of copies exceeds the production quota, the workflow is denied but if the requested number of copies are below the production quota, the work flow is sent to the authorized production machine for execution, Col. 7 lines 1-18 and Col.6 lines 1-12);
determining that one or more first workflow portions, included in the
information, are valid (if the requested number of copies exceeds the production
quota, the workflow is denied but if the requested number of copies are below the
production quota, the workflow is sent to the authorized production machine for
execution, Col. 7 lines 1-18 and Col.6 lines 1-12); and
determining that one or more second workflow portions, not included in
the information, are invalid (if the requested number of copies exceeds the production
quota, the workflow is denied but if the requested number of copies are below the
production quota, the workflow is sent to the authorized production machine for
execution, Col. 7 lines 1-18 and Col.6 lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 5 combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka and JP73 teach the method of claim 1. In addition, Myers et al. teaches, wherein receiving the plurality of encrypted jobs based on the request for the plurality of jobs comprises: creating, based on the request for the plurality of jobs, a workload object that references the workflow and includes a list of the plurality of encrypted jobs9 (the user puts in a query including information for workflow operation. Based on user query, the computer selects a particular workflow (identifying the plurality of encrypted10 jobs) matching the conditions of user's query from the metadata- data structure that matches the conditions of inputted in the query. The selected workflow has multiple sets of operation to be performed - plurality of jobs, [0107]);
identifying the plurality of encrypted jobs in a data structure based on the
workload object (" ... The query information may be compared to meta data
corresponding to the multiple workflows. In comparing the query information to the
workflow metadata, the system (e.g., the system 100 as shown in FIGS. 1 A-1 B) or a
part of the system (e.g., the workflow publishing server 110 as shown in FIGS. 1A-1 B)
may identify one or more workflows of the multiple workflows that specifically address
the error, condition, or other issue experienced by the computer system, and/or one or
more workflows that are related to the error, condition, or other issue experienced by
the computer system ... ''); and
receiving the plurality of encrypted jobs from the data structure (the
selected workflow from the metadata has set of operations or sequence of actions to be
performed - plurality of jobs11 , [0107] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 6 combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka and JP73 teach the method of claim 1. In addition, Myers et al. teaches, wherein the workflow includes: a plurality of steps to execute, a plurality of job descriptions, wherein each of the plurality of job descriptions is included in a corresponding one of the plurality of steps (the workflow includes information of purpose of the workflow, the descriptions of operations to be performed by the workflow and operations performed within the workflow including set of instructions and commands and others, [0034],[0035] and [0054]), and a plurality of job templates, wherein each of the plurality of job templates is referenced in a corresponding one of the plurality of job descriptions (a workflow represents a template of operations of the instructions to be performed by the workflow and within the workflow, [0100],[0033] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 7 combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka and JP73 teach the method of claim 6. In addition, Myers et al. teaches, wherein each of the plurality of job templates includes data identifying one or more of: a plugin to utilize, a job to call by the plugin, a list of input parameters, a list of output parameters (a set of applications used by the workflow is the plugins used by the workflow and the detailed description of operation of the workflow includes the parameters (inputs and outputs) for sequence of actions or functions to be performed by the workflow, [0033],[0034] and [0038]) , or a mapping describing how inputs and outputs of the plugin are mapped to the list of input parameters and the list of output parameters during execution (based on the input parameters provided by the request/workflow12/class definition objects, the plugin parameters of the plugin template are mapped in association with the inputs parameters and method parameters of the request/workflow/class definition objects, [0029] and [0030] in view of Kang et al.).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka et al. and JP73 teach the method comprising workflow system workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow. Therefore together they teach the device configured to identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow implementing the functional steps of the above claimed method and therefore rejected for the reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka et al. and JP73 teach the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured. In addition, Mohammed et al. teaches, receive verified workflow portions associated with a plurality of verified workflows (each user has allocated production quota - verified workflow portions, Col. 7 lines 1 -17 and Col.4 lines 44-47);
and store the verified workflow portions in a workflow data structure (the server stores the allocated production quota for each authorized user, Col. 7 lines 1 -17 and Col.4 lines 44-47),
wherein the workflow data structure is utilized to determine whether the
plurality of workflow portions associated with the plurality of encrypted jobs are
valid (each workflow with number of copies of object (plurality of jobs) is compared with
allocated production quota, and if the requested number of copies exceeds the
production quota, the workflow is denied but if the requested number of copies are
below the production quota, the workflow is sent to the authorized production machine
for execution, Col. 7 lines 1-18 and Col.6 lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka et al. and JP73 teach the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured. In addition, Myers et al. teaches, prevent the workflow from being implemented based on the final result (the server analyses the workflow before execution. During workflow analysis or validation, if any error is found, the workflow is denied or not published and possible options are explored to correct the workflow, [0187] and [0183]); or
cause the workflow to be implemented based on the final result (during
workflow analysis, if no error is found and all other conditions are met, the workflow is
published by the server for execution, [0187] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 14, combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka et al. and JP73 teach the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured. In addition, Myers et al. teaches, remove the plurality of encrypted jobs determined to be denied from the workflow (" In some implementations, the workflow publishing server 110 removes one or more workflows from the requested workflows 118 due to a determination that one or more workflows are incompatible with the server13 120 ... ", [0071] and [0187]); and
cause the workflow to be implemented without the plurality of encrypted
jobs determined to be denied (" ... This subset of the requested workflows 118 may
be sent to the server 120 in place of the requested workflows 11813. In these
implementations, a notification may be provided to the server 120 indicating that one or
more workflows were not sent due to incompatibility ... ", [0071]).
Regarding claim 15, combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al.,
Yang et al., Ishisaka et al. and JP73 teach the claimed method of receiving by a device, workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow. Therefore, together they teach the set of instructions causing a device to receive workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow implementing the functional limitations of the method of receiving by a device, workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow as discussed in claim 1. Claim 15 has additional limitations taught by Myers et al., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device (non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers having processors, cause the one or more computers to perform operations, [0208] and Claim 20).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al., Yang et al., Ishisaka et al. and JP73 teach the claimed method of receiving by a device, workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow. Therefore, together they teach the set of instructions causing a device to receive workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow implementing the functional limitations of the method of receiving by a device, workflow data identifying an automation request associated with automating a workflow as discussed in claims 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 20 combination of Myers et al., Mohammed et al., SHI et al., Yang et al., Ishisaka et al. and JP73 teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15. In addition, Myers et al. teaches, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to perform the one or more actions, cause the device to one or more of: prevent the workflow from being implemented based on the final result (the server analyses the workflow before execution. During workflow analysis or validation, if any error is found, the workflow is denied or not published and possible options are explored to correct the workflow, [0187] and [0183]);
cause the workflow to be implemented based on the final result (during
workflow analysis, if no error is found and all other conditions are met, the workflow is
published by the server for execution, [0187] and [0183]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramachandran (US 10755209 B2) teaches automating a workflow system based on number of processes performed error free and number of processes performed with error. If the error rate exceeds a benchmark, the automation of the workflow is not approved or disabled from being performed.
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 ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, THOMAS LEE can be reached at (571)272-3667. 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.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/THOMAS C LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Workflow with jobs.
2 Populating input parameters for the workflow with plurality of set of instructions (plurality of jobs
encrypted in view of Mohammed et al.) having a certain template.
3 Col.6 lines 5-10.
4 Request to produce the object is the workflow.
5 Encrypted jobs in view of Mohammed et al.
6 Allowed workflow in view of Myers et al. If the workflow determined to be not allowable based on certain
factors, it will not be further processed. During allowed workflow processing, the plugin for the allowed
workflow is identified and the plugin parameters are configured in association with the allowed workflow
and executed as a part of allowed workflow execution.
7 Encrypted jobs in view of Mohammed et al.
8 The description of operations will include details of each any every step of how the workflow will
operate-interconnection between the one or more nodes of the workflow.
9 In view of Mohammed et al., user sends a request to create a workflow having certain number of copies
(plurality of jobs) of object to be printed. Upon received request, the server assigns a Job token to the workflow and encrypts the workflow, Col.5 lines 55-67 and Col.6 lines 5-10 and 52-65. Production quota
is the data structure, when workflow is received, the server retri