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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 9, 11-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180321833 A1) in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20230074740 A1), and further in view of Azmoon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160188134 A1).
Nelson and Yin were cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 1, Nelson teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a device, comprising:
a processor (Fig. 32, Processor 3205); and
a memory (Fig. 32, Memory 3210) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations (par. 0170 the encoded instructions may then be loaded as computer executable instructions or process steps to processor 3205 from storage device 3220, from memory 3210), the operations comprising:
presenting, within a development environment of a software-as-a-service platform, a task element, expressing a task workflow, that is modeled as a record of an … data model of the development environment (par. 0004 cloud computing services a user may utilize include software as a service (SaaS); par. 0010 an automation system configured to present on a display an operational view of an executing flow plan [task workflow] within an operational view user interface. The operational view user interface includes a flow plan graphical outline associated with the executing flow plan; par. 0072 The automation system stores the design-time flow plan that a user builds with the flow designer user interface and action designer user interface as a data model. The data model represents the design-time flow plan and instances using flow plan entities, trigger entities, action entities, and step entities),
executing the task workflow according to a flow state management procedure and, in response to the executing, updating the record according to a current state of the task element (par. 0073 To enter the flow plan execution phase, the automation system compiles the data model representation of the design-time flow plan after receiving a publish instruction via the automation user interface system. During the flow plan execution phase, the flow engine within the cloud developmental platform network 110 executes run-time flow plans that are directed to acyclic graphs of operations that move data between operation nodes in a declarative manner as each operation completes; par. 0139 The results of the operation execution engine 2014 are then sent back to the input/output value manager 2006 and predecessor operation reference engine 2008 to update and annotate the run-time state information for the run-time flow plan.); and
correlating the task element to at least one automated operation of a flow designer module of the development environment (par. 0059 the automation system calls a flow builder API to generate a run-time version of the design-time flow plan based on the data model; par. 0095 … The run-time flow is constructed from operations with data dependencies between each of the operations. The flow engines 514 and 518 may be able to execute the operation such that the data dependencies are met along with any explicitly execution order dependencies; par. 0078 HR application can construct pieces of the flow plan from the HR application's internal data model, create triggers that execute the various tasks when required, and have the flow plan start actions to create to appropriate records). a telecommunication network service provider (par. 0062 one or more mobile provider networks).
Nelson, does not expressly disclose: an order data model, wherein the order data model of the development environment is a framework that enables network equipment associated with a telecommunication network service provider to manage a customer order for at least one service.
However, Yin teaches: order data model; wherein the order data model of the development environment is a framework that enables … [providers] to manage a customer order for at least one service (par. 0004 provide an improved order data model operable for structuring order data records storing information on product or service orders placed by a user; par. 0033 The order data model maintains an association between the different data records, and with the assigned providers to ensure the correct processing of each order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of providing an order data model operable for structuring order data records storing information on product or service orders of Yin with the system and method of Nelson resulting in a system and method which provides an order data model that manages service orders placed by a customer user as Yin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated this combination for the purpose of ensuring the correct processing of each order (par. 0033).
Nelson and Yin do not expressly disclose: wherein the task element is presented in a visual task board generated by a flow designer module of the development environment, wherein the visual task board visualizes the task workflow as a plurality of tasks, and wherein the visual task board indicates a status and a history of actions performed for each task of the plurality of tasks.
However, Azmoon teaches: wherein the task element is presented in a visual task board generated by a flow designer module of the development environment, wherein the visual task board visualizes the task workflow as a plurality of tasks, and wherein the visual task board indicates a status and a history of actions performed for each task of the plurality of tasks (par. 0030 Visual task boards provide a computer-based graphical user interface for navigating and managing project and system management information … Records may be represented as cards [tasks] on a display that a user can view and edit. For example, cards may represent tasks, incidents, problems, conversations, meetings, or the like. Cards may be organized into lanes based on metrics, such as status or user; par. 0054 In a visual task board 900, a group of related cards 810, 850 … may be represented as a lane 800. A lane 800 may organize cards 810, 850 into a vertical group. A lane 800 may represent a defined criterion … such as a task status ... For example, a lane may represent a task status, such as “To Do”, “Doing”, or “Done”; par. 0060 The activity stream portion 920 may indicate a history of changes to cards 810 [tasks], and the corresponding records, on the visual task board 900. For example, a first activity stream section 922 may correspond with the most recent change, and a second activity stream section 924 may correspond with a previous change; par. 0086 a visual task board 1600 including a cumulative flow diagram 1610 based on status values over a defined time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique for displaying a visual task board that visualizes tasks of a flow based on task status of Azmoon with the system of Nelson and Yin resulting in a system and method which provides/creates a visual task block that visualizes tasks of a flow based on task status as in Azmoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of visual ordering of information/tasks presented on an electronic display (0076). Further provides for transforming abstract workflows into clear, actionable, and shared images, makes complex projects digestible.
As per claim 2, Yin further teaches: wherein the order data model further enables the network equipment to manage customer orders for different types of products and services (par. 0004, improved order data model operable for structuring order data records storing information on product or service orders placed by a user; par. 0061 the proposed OMS offers a flexible configuration that may support handling different types of services and products without the need for additional development or integration.).
As per claim 3, Nelson further teaches: wherein the at least one automated operation comprises an approval operation, a task execution operation, a notification operation, or a record operation in the development environment (par. 0009 In another embodiment, an automation system configured to present on a display an approval step instance graphical element within an action designer user interface; par. 0078. a user can design the flow plan's trigger to initiate when a recorded incident is created in a specific security category. In response to this trigger, the flow plan creates a task for the Security Response Team to immediately investigate the incident, and send potential security breach notifications; par. 0070 A user is able to add or modify step instances by selecting from a list of pre-existing step types that include, but are not limited to creating tasks, creating records, updating records).
As per claim 4, Nelson further teaches: wherein the at least one automated operation of the flow designer module comprises one of a flow operation, a subflow operation, or an action operation (par. 0086 As the flower builder API adds an action instance 312 to the flow component element 308, action instance's 312 operation plans are added to the flow operation 310).
As per claim 5, Nelson further teaches: wherein the software-as-a-service platform is enabled by cloud equipment associated with a cloud software-as-a-service provider (par. 0004 cloud computing services a user may utilize include software as a service (SaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS) technologies).
As per claim 9, Nelson further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: executing a dependency management procedure that verifies existence of dependencies of the task element (par. 0095 … The flow engines 514 and 518 may be able to execute the operation such that the data dependencies are met along with any explicitly execution order dependencies).
As per claim 11, it is a non-transitory machine-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Nelson further teaches: a non-transitory machine readable medium (par. 0053 one or more non-transitory physical media).
As per claim 12, it is a non-transitory machine-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
As per claim 13, it is a non-transitory machine-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
As per claim 14, it is a non-transitory machine-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
As per claim 15, Nelson further teaches: wherein the task element is presented in the visual task board generated by the flow designer module of the development environment (par. 0077 As an example, if the step instances is to create a task within a virtual task board (VTB), then expanding the create VTB task step instance could provide run-time values and the ability to link back to the VTB record).
As per claim 16, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
As per claim 19, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 9.
As per claim 20, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 10. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 10.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Yin and Azmoon as applied to claims 1 and 16, and further in view of Nerius et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200301607 A1).
Nerius was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 7, Nelson, Yin and Azmoon do not expressly disclose: executing a retry procedure that reattempts the flow state management procedure following a failure of the flow state management procedure.
However, Nerius teaches: executing a retry procedure that reattempts the flow state management procedure following a failure of the flow state management procedure (par. 0040 retry handling policy system 28 may create retry handling policies 32, 34 which may then be used by objects of the Flow Designer system 112 during execution of the objects; par. 0045 The Actions 308, 310 may use the retry handling policies created … That is, the Actions 308 and/or 310 may include retry logic that first processes a set of conditions during interactions with the external systems 30 to determine if a retry should occur. If the retry should occur the Actions 308 and/or 310 may then execute certain retry logic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the retry mechanism for handling error conditions of Nerius with the system and method of Nelson, Yin and Azmoon resulting in a system and method which provides a retry mechanism to handle error conditions as in Nerius. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of handling a variety of error conditions, thus improving the resultant automated processes developed via the Flow Designer system (par. 0007).
24. As per claim 17, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Yin and Azmoon as applied to claims 1 and 16, and further in view of Webster et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200133711 A1).
Webster was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 8, Nelson, Yin and Azmoon do not expressly disclose: executing a bypass procedure that foregoes the flow state management procedure.
However, Webster teaches: executing a bypass procedure that foregoes the flow state management procedure (par. 0196 (i) initiating an execution of a software development workflow process model, or portion thereof … (iv) skipping an execution of a software development workflow process model, or portion thereof, and/or (v) bypassing an execution of a software development workflow process model … In a particular embodiment, bypassing can include a skip operation and further provides predetermined data, such as a predetermined execution result (e.g., a pass result) and/or other value … for the bypassed portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of bypassing an execution of a software development workflow process model of Wester with the system and method of Nelson, Yin and Azmoon resulting in a system and method which provides for bypassing execution of software development workflow process model/procedure as in Webster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of optimizing a workflow process (par. 0002).
Further, it would provide improved scalability, performance, and fault tolerance.
24. As per claim 18, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 8.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Yin and Azmoon, and further in view of Morris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20080027996 A1).
As per claim 10, Nelson, Yin and Azmoon do not expressly teach: wherein the operations further comprise: executing a synchronization procedure that verifies data synchronization between first data of the task flow and second data of the at least one automated operation of the flow designer module.
However, Morris teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: executing a synchronization procedure that verifies data synchronization between first data of the task flow and second data of the at least one automated operation of the flow designer module (par. 0024 When the status information indicating such a change in content is received by a presence client subscribed to the status information, a synchronization operation can be initiated to synchronize the content in the other data store client(s) with that in the publishing data store client in substantially real time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique synchronizing content between other data store clients and a publishing data store client of Morris with the system and method of Nelson, Yin and Azmoon resulting in a system and method which provides executing data synchronization procedure between a first data of task flow and a second data of an operation of a flow designer as in Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving performance (par. 0070). Further, it would have provided for ensuring consistency, prevent data loss, and establish a single source of truth.
As per claim 21, it is non-transitory machine-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 10. Thus claim 21 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571) 270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights