DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to amendments filed October 21st, 2025. Claims 1, 14, and 27 have been amended. Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20, 21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues the amended claims “provide an improvement to a specific field of technology (allowing for a more efficient way to create a method for analyzing chromatography results, as well as to enforce access rights within the method).” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that the argued “allowing for a more efficient way to create a method” does not present an improvement to a technical field. Citing MPEP 2106.05(f), "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, the argued enforcement of access rights, as claimed merely recites “determine, from the profile, if the second user is in the list of users or the class of users authorized to perform the second step”. This determination, as claimed merely recites the abstract idea of mental process as this claimed determination is a judgment and evaluation of the human mind. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims “require a particular configuration of machines/apparatuses”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claimed “a user interface; an audit log; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the provided remarks, “as amended the claims could not reasonably be performed by a human or in the human mind”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, while Applicant has argued the assigning of access rights, reaching a transition of a workflow, and enforcing the access rights by verifying the requesting user’s identity according to their profile, as stated above, the claims merely recite “assign a first access right to the first step and a second access right to a second step of the plurality of steps” & “determine, from the profile, if the second user is in the list of users or the class of users authorized to perform the second step”. This assignment and determination, as claimed merely recites the abstract idea of mental process as this claimed assignment & determination are observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 10/21/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20, 21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chakravarty (U.S 2008/0040191 A1) in view Binjrajka (U.S 2014/0075413 A1) in view of Rits (U.S 2008/0016554 A1) in view of McLeod (U.S 9,424,398 B1).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 27 objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation beginning “assigning” recites “the respective step” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a respective step”;
The limitation beginning “adding a transition” recites “performing the current step” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “performing the first step”;
The limitation beginning “receiving a request” recites “a second user” which is a typographical error that should recite “the second user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 18, and 31 objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation beginning “identifying the first user” recites “the current step” which is a typographical error that should recite “the first step”;
The limitation beginning “identifying the second user” recites “the next step” which is a typographical error that should recite “the second step”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 14 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and 27 (computing apparatus) and dependent claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, and 37-38, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture), and claim 27 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; adding a plurality of steps to the workflow, each step being associated with one or more pages representing respective variations of the step; receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step; assigning the variation represented by the page to the first step; assigning a first access right to the first step and a second access right to a second step of the plurality of steps, each access right comprising a list of users or a class of users authorized to perform the respective step; receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step; adding a transition to the workflow, the transition representing a change in data custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to the second step of the plurality of steps, performing the current step by a first user; reaching the transition; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user; determining, from the profile, if the second user is in the list of users or the class of users authorized to perform the second step; and moving the workflow across the transition from the first step to the second step only if the second user is authorized by the access right of the second step (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are assigning first access rights to a first step and second access rights to a second step of the plurality of steps; adding a transition to the workflow representing a change in custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to a second step of the plurality of steps; and determining if the user is authorized to perform a second step, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are adding a transition to the workflow between users, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are generating a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment including assigning first access rights to a first step and second access rights to a second step of the plurality of steps; adding a transition to the workflow representing a change in custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to a second step of the plurality of steps; and determining if the user is authorized to perform a second step, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are generating a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 further narrow the abstract idea and are directed to further defining the execution of the workflow; the subset of plurality of steps; the page configuration; and altering steps. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal interactions in addition to mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step; receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a user interface; an audit log; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5, 8, 11-13, 18, 21, 24-26, 31, 34, and 37-38 additionally recite “logging the first user in an audit log”; “logging the second user in the audit log”; “display data associated with a step corresponding to the page”; “receiving a configuration for the visualization element that controls how the visualization element displays the data”; “receiving a selection of one of the predefined display formats”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow from an initiating user”; “logging the movement in an audit log”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for returning to the another one of the plurality of steps”; “logging the reason in the audit log”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for changing the setting”; and “logging the reason in the audit log” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “user interface” and “audit log” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a user interface; an audit log; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1, 5, 7-8, and 11-13; non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 14, 18, 20-21, and 24-26; and computing apparatus claims 27, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 recite “a user interface; an audit log; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0122 and 0124 and Figures 6 & 9. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step; receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5, 8, 11-13, 18, 21, 24-26, 31, 34, and 37-38 additionally recite “logging the first user in an audit log”; “logging the second user in the audit log”; “display data associated with a step corresponding to the page”; “receiving a configuration for the visualization element that controls how the visualization element displays the data”; “receiving a selection of one of the predefined display formats”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow from an initiating user”; “logging the movement in an audit log”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for returning to the another one of the plurality of steps”; “logging the reason in the audit log”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for changing the setting”; and “logging the reason in the audit log” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “user interface” and “audit log” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 14, 18, 20-21, 24, 27, 31, 33-34, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakravarty (U.S 2008/0040191 A1) in view Binjrajka (U.S 2014/0075413 A1) in view of Rits (U.S 2008/0016554 A1) in view of McLeod (U.S 9,424,398 B1).
Claims 1, 14, and 27
Regarding Claim 1, Chakravarty discloses the following:
A method comprising [see at least Abstract for reference to the method for customizing and storing workflow processes; Figure 7 and 8 and related text regarding the incident response method for customizing workflow processes]
receiving an instruction to generate a workflow, adding a plurality of steps to the workflow, each step representing respective variations of the step [see at least Paragraph 0025 for reference to the workflow module being used to edit and run workflow process instances; Paragraph 0026 for reference to each workflow process instance may include a series of steps made up of one or more work items; Paragraph 0026 for reference to workflow module being used in edit mode to create or modify a set of customizable workflow process instances; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 22 ‘Edit Mode’; Figure 3 and related text regarding the Edit Mode User Interface’]
receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps [see at least Paragraph 0025 for reference to the workflow module being used to edit and run workflow process instances; Paragraph 0026 for reference to workflow module being used in edit mode to create or modify a set of customizable workflow process instances; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the user can select and place on the graph steps, work-item elements, and transition elements; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 22 ‘Edit Mode’; Figure 3 and related text regarding the Edit Mode User Interface’ and item 203 ‘Process Elements’ including ‘Work-Item’]
receiving a selection, via the user interface, for the first step [see at least Paragraph 0025 for reference to the workflow module being used to edit and run workflow process instances; Paragraph 0026 for reference to workflow module being used in edit mode to create or modify a set of customizable workflow process instances; Paragraph 0040 for reference to a workflow process instance may be represented in a graph or chart format and comprise (i) a series of steps made up of one or more work-items and (ii) transitions between steps and/or work-items; Paragraph 0040 for reference to Edit mode allowing the user to configure each step and/or work-item within user interface as the user creates a customized workflow process instance; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 22 ‘Edit Mode’; Figure 3 and related text regarding the Edit Mode User Interface’]
assigning the variation to the first step [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to Edit mode allowing the user to configure each step and/or work-item within user interface as the user creates a customized workflow process instance; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the user can select and place on the graph steps, work-item elements, and transition elements; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 22 ‘Edit Mode’; Figure 3 and related text regarding the Edit Mode User Interface’]
assigning a first access right to the first step and a second access right to a second step of the plurality of steps, each access right comprising a list of users or a class of users authorized to perform the respective step [see at least Paragraph 0013 for reference to manual work-items (or a portion of a work-item), which require user input, may be assigned to a human resource wherein the human resource may be one or more specific individuals or it may be a role wherein the a role refers to a class or group of people based on one or more characteristics (e.g., a title, position, authorization level, qualifications, etc.); Paragraph 0025 for reference to the Assignment Module facilitating the assignment of one or more workflow process instances to a given incident; Paragraph 0029 for reference to an authorized user manually associating an incident to a stored workflow process instance; Paragraph 0030 for reference to manual work-items may require manual response from an assigned human resource (e.g., user/role) in order to be completed and the human resource assignment for one or more manual work-items may be specified when the workflow process; Paragraph 0030 for reference to human resource may be delegated a work item based on their role (e.g., system administrator, analyst etc.) and/or identity (e.g., user identifier, name, etc.); Figure 1 and related text regarding item 18 ‘Assignment Module’]
receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the workflow process instances may be created, modified, stored, deleted, and/or otherwise managed wherein each workflow process instance includes a series of steps and transitions between the steps and/or work-items; Paragraph 0040 for reference to a transition indicating one or more alternative next steps and/or work-items to be taken, depending on the status/outcome of a prior step/work-item; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the user can select and place on the graph steps, work-item elements, and transition elements; Paragraph 0042 for reference to transitions being added (e.g., by right clicking on steps or work-items and selecting an option to add transitions from a popup menu); Paragraph 0043 for reference to the panel for process elements which can be dragged and dropped into the graph or incorporated in; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 22 ‘Edit Mode’; Figure 3 and related text regarding the Edit Mode User Interface’ and the selectable ‘Variables’]
adding a transition to the workflow, the transition representing a change in data custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to the second step of the plurality of steps, wherein the current step is configured to be performed by a first user and the next step is configured to be performed by a second user different from the first user [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the workflow process instances may be created, modified, stored, deleted, and/or otherwise managed wherein each workflow process instance includes a series of steps and transitions between the steps and/or work-items; Paragraph 0040 for reference to a transition indicating one or more alternative next steps and/or work-items to be taken, depending on the status/outcome of a prior step/work-item; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the user can select and place on the graph steps, work-item elements, and transition elements; Paragraph 0042 for reference to transitions being added (e.g., by right clicking on steps or work-items and selecting an option to add transitions from a popup menu); Paragraph 0055 for reference to transitions defining control within a workflow process instance between steps and/or work-items; Paragraph 0057 for reference to time-out transitions the source work-item may be removed from one user's work-list and placed into another user's work-list or the work-item may be shared between two or more users; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 203 ‘Process Elements’ including ‘Transitions’]
performing the current step by a first user [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to the workflow module executing one or more workflow process instances including implementing one or more steps of the workflow process; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 109 ‘Start Workflow Instance’ and item 111 ‘Manual Step’]
reaching the transition [see at least Paragraph 0062 for reference to as the workflow process instance is executed it may be determined for each step encountered (operation 110) along the workflow whether it is automatic or manual step; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 110 ‘Encounter Step’, item 111 ‘Manual Step’, and item 116 ‘System Step’]
determining, if the second user is in the list of users or the class of users authorized to perform the second step [see at least Paragraph 0013 for reference to manual work-items (or a portion of a work-item), which require user input, may be assigned to a human resource wherein the human resource may be one or more specific individuals or it may be a role wherein the a role refers to a class or group of people based on one or more characteristics (e.g., a title, position, authorization level, qualifications, etc.); Paragraph 0030 for reference to manual work-items may require manual response from an assigned human resource (e.g., user/role) in order to be completed and the human resource assignment for one or more manual work-items may be specified when the workflow process; Paragraph 0030 for reference to human resource may be delegated a work item based on their role (e.g., system administrator, analyst etc.) and/or identity (e.g., user identifier, name, etc.); Figure 8 and related text regarding item 111 ‘Manual Step’ and item 113 ‘Manual Work-item Complete?’]
moving the workflow across the transition from the first step to the second step only if the second user is authorized by the access right of the second step [see at least Paragraph 0062 for reference to a manual work item may be generated and assigned to a user and/or role based on work-item attributes or dynamic user/role selection; Paragraph 0064 for reference to after the work-item for the step (manual work-item or system work-item) is successfully completed the operation determines whether the workflow instance is complete and if not then continues to the next step to be processed; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 112 ‘Generate and Assign Work-item to User/Role’ and item 113 ‘Manual Work Item Complete?’]
While Chakravarty discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; each step being associated with one or more pages; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step; assigning the variation represented by the page to the first step; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user; determining, from the profile, if the second user is in the list of users or the class of users authorized to perform the second step.
However, Binjrajka discloses the following:
receiving an instruction to generate a workflow, adding a plurality of steps to the workflow, each step being associated with one or more pages representing respective variations of the step [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the workflow loader receiving a user generated workflow process or the user can define the workflow process via user interface; Paragraph 0036 for reference to the application generator analyzing the received workflow process to determine process steps according to the workflow process; Paragraph 0037 for reference the application generator builds or identifies any workflow pages representing a step or multiple steps; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 502 ‘RECEIVE USER-GENERATED WORKFLOW PROCESS’, item 504 ‘ANALYZE WORKFLOW PROCESS TO DETERMINE PROCESS STEPS’, and item 506 ‘BUILD/IDENTIFY WORKFLOW PAGES FROM WORKFLOW PAGE REPOSITORY GENERATE WORKFLOW AND ROUTING CONFIGURATION RULES BASED ON IDENTIFIED WORKFLOW PAGES’]
receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to the user using the user interface to select a workflow page to include in the workflow and an execution order; Paragraph 0037 for reference the application generator builds or identifies any workflow pages representing a step or multiple steps; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 506 ‘BUILD/IDENTIFY WORKFLOW PAGES FROM WORKFLOW PAGE REPOSITORY GENERATE WORKFLOW AND ROUTING CONFIGURATION RULES BASED ON IDENTIFIED WORKFLOW PAGES’]
assigning the variation represented by the page to the first step [see at least [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to the user using the user interface to select a workflow page to include in the workflow and an execution order; Paragraph 0037 for reference the application generator builds or identifies any workflow pages representing a step or multiple steps; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 506 ‘BUILD/IDENTIFY WORKFLOW PAGES FROM WORKFLOW PAGE REPOSITORY GENERATE WORKFLOW AND ROUTING CONFIGURATION RULES BASED ON IDENTIFIED WORKFLOW PAGES’ and item 510 ‘AGGREGATE AND PREPROCESS WORKFLOW CONFIGURATION AND ROUTING RULES, WORKFLOW PAGES, AND LAYOUT TEMPLATE TO GENERATE WORKFLOW CONTEXT’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the workflow generation of Chakravarty to include the workflow page configuration of Binjrajka. Doing so allows for the reuse of previously coded steps and thus avoids the recoding of steps common, or similar, to different workflows, as stated by Binjrajka (Paragraph 0012).
While the combination of Chakravarty and Binjrajka disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user; determining, from the profile, if the second user is in the list of users or the class of users authorized to perform the second step.
However, Rits discloses the following:
receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step [see at least Paragraph 0060 for reference to a request to execute a workflow is received from a particular user; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 520]
accessing a profile associated with the second user [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to the system defining access rules and role profiles of users; Paragraph 0060 for reference to each user being associated with a role that is known to the system executing the method; Paragraph 0060 for reference to the role of the user being looked up in a directory service]
determining, from the profile, if the second user is in the list of users or the class of users authorized to perform the second step [see at least Paragraph 0061 for reference to global access control is performed based on the global access type derived to determine whether the user own a role that is equal or senior to the role required; Paragraph 0062 for reference to the system determining if access is allowable; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 530]
moving the workflow across the transition from the first step to the second step only if the second user is authorized by the access right of the second step [see at least Paragraph 0062 for reference to the system determining if access is allowable, then the method continues by executing the workflow; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 540]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the workflow generation & execution of Chakravarty to include the workflow authorization using user profiles of Rits. Doing so not only leads to improved performance but also permits to detect an inescapable execution abortion due to missing privileges at an early stage, as stated by Rits (Paragraph 0024).
While the combination of Chakravarty, Binjrajka, and Rits disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment.
However, McLeod discloses the following:
receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment [see at least Col 2 lines 28-31 for reference to the system running the generated workflow according to the defined sequence, and collecting resulting experimental data from the analytical laboratory instrument; Col 3 lines 61-65 for reference to a computer-implemented workflow application capturing laboratory-specific rules that govern creation and modification of sequences for analytical instruments such as chromatography instruments; Col 4 lines 27-31 for reference to the analytical system including chromatography instruments; Col 4 lines 40-42 for reference to the control device implementing a workflow chromatography application; Col 6 lines 4-8 for reference to the graphical user interface invoking a workflow editor within the chromatography application]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the workflow generation of Chakravarty to include the analysis of chromatography results of McLeod. Doing so would improve ease-of-use, reduce training needs, and speed up data processing times, as stated by McLeod (Col 8 lines 56-57).
Regarding claims 14 and 27, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 14, Chakravarty teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer [Paragraph 0066]. Regarding claim 27, Chakravarty teaches an computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor [Paragraph 0065 and Figure 1]. Therefore, claims 14 and 27 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Chakravarty, Binjrajka, Rits, and McLeod.
Claims 5, 18, and 31
While the combination of Chakravarty, Binjrajka, Rits, and McLeod disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Chakravarty discloses the following:
identifying the first user who performed the current step [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to manual work-items require manual response from an assigned human resource (e.g., user/role) in order to be completed; Paragraph 0030 for reference to human resource may be delegated a work item based on their role (e.g., system administrator, analyst, etc.) and/or identity (e.g., user identifier, name, etc.); Paragraph 0031 for reference to one user may assume responsibility for the work-item by being the first to select it from the group's work-list]
logging the first user in an audit log [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to a databased being associated with the workflow module to store workflow process instances; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 19 ‘database’]
arriving at the transition [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the workflow process instances may be created, modified, stored, deleted, and/or otherwise managed wherein each workflow process instance includes a series of steps and transitions between the steps and/or work-items; Paragraph 0040 for reference to a transition indicating one or more alternative next steps and/or work-items to be taken, depending on the status/outcome of a prior step/work-item; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the user can select and place on the graph steps, work-item elements, and transition elements; Paragraph 0042 for reference to transitions being added (e.g., by right clicking on steps or work-items and selecting an option to add transitions from a popup menu)]
identifying the second user responsible for performing the next step [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to manual work-items require manual response from an assigned human resource (e.g., user/role) in order to be completed; Paragraph 0030 for reference to human resource may be delegated a work item based on their role (e.g., system administrator, analyst, etc.) and/or identity (e.g., user identifier, name, etc.); Paragraph 0031 for reference to one user may assume responsibility for the work-item by being the first to select it from the group's work-list]
handing off control of the workflow from the first user to the second user [see at least Paragraph 0055 for reference to transitions defining control within a workflow process instance between steps and/or work-items; Paragraph 0057 for reference to time-out transitions the source work-item may be removed from one user's work-list and placed into another user's work-list or the work-item may be shared between two or more users; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 203 ‘Process Elements’ including ‘Transitions’]
logging the second user in the audit log [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to a databased being associated with the workflow module to store workflow process instances; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 19 ‘database’]
Regarding claims 18 and 31, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 7, 20, and 33
While the combination of Chakravarty, Binjrajka, Rits, and McLeod disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 7, Chakravarty discloses the following:
a first subset of the plurality of steps are associated with a processing template, the processing template defining one or more customizable visualizations for each step [see at least Paragraph 0048 for reference to templates being created to facilitate creation and editing of workflow elements; Paragraph 0049 for reference to an example of a work-item including a template-work item; Paragraph 0052 for reference to the template work-item being a predefined work item stored within the system; Figure 5 and related text regarding the template work-item]
a second subset of the plurality of steps are associated with a review template, the review template specifying one or more actions to be taken by a reviewer of data generated by the first subset of the plurality of steps [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to workflow module (or other module) may initiate one or more actions associated with the system work-item; Paragraph 0032 for reference to the action is not successfully completed (e.g., error in shutting off problem server), then another incident (Sub-incident) may be triggered in order to resolve the problem before moving on to the next work-item in the workflow process instance; Paragraph 0048 for reference to templates being created to facilitate creation and editing of workflow elements]
While Chakravarty discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose the processing template defining one or more customizable pages of visualizations for each step.
However, Binjrajka discloses the following:
the processing template defining one or more customizable pages of visualizations for each step [see at least Paragraph 0025 for reference to the template engine 108 provides the application generator 100 with layout information that is common information for the generated workflow, e.g., a header, a footer, a color scheme for a page, and global application parameters; Paragraph 0026 for reference to the template engine 108 uses form/page builder 308 to construct dynamic forms and pages based on configured user interface properties 310, form fields 312, and vali dation rules 314; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘AGGREGATE AND PREPROCESS WORKFLOW CONFIGURATION AND ROUTING RULES, WORKFLOW PAGES, AND LAYOUT TEMPLATE TO GENERATE WORKFLOW CONTEXT’ & item 512 ‘LAYOUT TEMPLATES’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the workflow generation of Chakravarty to include the workflow page configuration of Binjrajka. Doing so allows for the reuse of previously coded steps and thus avoids the recoding of steps common, or similar, to different workflows, as stated by Binjrajka (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claims 20 and 33, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8, 21, and 34
While the combination of Chakravarty, Binjrajka, Rits, and McLeod disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 8, Chakravarty discloses the following:
wherein a visualization element configured to display data associated with a step corresponding a user interface [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the incident tracking module may provide a visual representation of the workflow progress in real-time using the assigned workflow process instance created in the workflow module edit mode; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the process monitor allowing the user to track the progress of the instantiated workflow process instance based on a real-time visual indicator]
receiving a configuration for the visualization element that controls how the visualization element displays the data [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to Edit mode enabling the user to configure each step and/or work-item within user interface as the user creates customized workflow process instance; Paragraph 0049 for reference to a user being enabled to configured a work-item properties (attributes) using work-item dialog]
wherein receiving the configuration comprises: identifying a plurality of predefined display formats associated [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to the workflow process instance may be represented in a graph or chart format; Figure 3 and related text regarding the Edit Mode Interface]
receiving a selection of one of the predefined display formats [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to Edit mode enabling the user to configure each step and/or work item within user interface as the user creates a customized workflow process instance; Figure 3 and related text regarding the Edit Mode Interface]
While Chakravarty discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein at least one of the pages is associated with a visualization element configured to display data associated with a step corresponding to the page on a user interface and wherein receiving the configuration comprises: identifying a plurality of predefined display formats associated with the page.
However, Binjrajka discloses the following:
wherein at least one of the pages is associated with a visualization element configured to display data associated with a step corresponding to the page on a user interface [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the workflow loader receiving a user generated workflow process or the user can define the workflow process via user interface; Paragraph 0036 for reference to the application generator analyzing the received workflow process to determine process steps according to the workflow process; Paragraph 0037 for reference the application generator builds or identifies any workflow pages representing a step or multiple steps; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 502 ‘RECEIVE USER-GENERATED WORKFLOW PROCESS’, item 504 ‘ANALYZE WORKFLOW PROCESS TO DETERMINE PROCESS STEPS’, and item 506 ‘BUILD/IDENTIFY WORKFLOW PAGES FROM WORKFLOW PAGE REPOSITORY GENERATE WORKFLOW AND ROUTING CONFIGURATION RULES BASED ON IDENTIFIED WORKFLOW PAGES’]
wherein receiving the configuration c