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 .
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 10/31/2025.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 with respect to 35 USC 101have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 7
During the interview, Examiner has preliminarily indicated that the first proposed amendment has a chance of overcoming the 101 rejection if the first proposed amendment can be clarified that the cloud server is able to control the printer to print the new form after the new form has been generated, and also if such feature is supported by the original disclosure… [0025]… has a communication line interface (I/F) unit 36 that transmits and receives communication data to and from another external apparatus such as the cloud server 16 connected to the communication line 18. [0085] In step S206, the CPU 16A outputs a checklist of the selected flow as an image and proceeds to step S208. That is, in a case where there is a checklist created in step S108 described above, the checklist is transmitted to the image forming apparatus 12 registered in advance corresponding to the user and an image is formed. The checklist may be transmitted… to the information processing terminal 14 to instruct the information processing terminal 14 to form an image, and the user may instruct the image forming apparatus 12 to form an image.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is not clear how the instructing to the image forming apparatus is done. Para 0025 calls for the cloud server to be in communication with the image forming apparatus, but para 0085 calls for the user to instruct the image forming apparatus. The limitation is too broad and more detail is needed in how the image forming apparatus is instructed to print (i.e. how is it controlled). In addition, the limitation, instruct the image forming apparatus to print the new form on the paper which is carried by the document conveyor and printed through the image forming mechanism, is seen as insignificant extra solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. In addition, examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity include printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
Applicant argues particular machine on page 9, Applicant states
After the amendments, the claimed invention includes features directed to a particular machine which is one of the criteria recorded in the MPEP that ties the claimed invention to a practical application. A particular machine is included in the system of claim 1 which describes an image forming apparatus (known as multifunction device as it includes printing, scanning, copying, etc) having a conveyor mechanism and printing mechanism. A particular machine, as best understood, is a machine that executes functions beyond general processing by a processor such as printing and transporting paper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The system includes a processor and this processor is a general-purpose processor as seen in para 0087 (In the embodiments above, the term "processor" refers to hardware in a broad sense. Examples of the processor include general processors (e.g., CPU: Central Processing- 27 - Unit) and dedicated processors (e.g., GPU: Graphics Processing Unit, ASIC: Application Specific Integrated Circuit, FPGA: Field Programmable Gate Array, and programmable logic device). This processor is part of the image forming apparatus as well since it has a CPU as seen in para 0035 ( As shown in Fig. 3, the image forming apparatus 12 according to the present exemplary embodiment includes a control unit 20 including a central processing unit (CPU) 20A, a read only memory (ROM) 20B, and a random-access memory (RAM) 20C). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory category of an system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 19 and 20 recite the limitations of
obtaining a form having a business flow; presenting each step of a business flow including a plurality of steps registered in advance, wherein each step includes a text or an image; receiving a selection of multiple steps of the plurality of steps from a starting step to an ending step of the multiple steps for a change of the business flow, as a change target; changing the multiple steps in the change target to generate new steps, the new steps linking the remaining steps of the business flow before changing of the multiple steps, and register the business flow having the changing of the multiple steps as a new business flow in a new form…displaying the new business flow in the new form.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of presenting, obtaining, presenting, receiving, changing, generating, registering, and displaying data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of apparatus, processor, computer, and non-transitory computer readable medium, the claims language encompasses obtaining a form, presenting steps of a business flow, receiving steps for changes of the business flow, changing the steps to generate new steps, registering the modified business flow as a new business flow, and displaying the new business flow in a new form. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. Given a real-world example, a manager can manage business flows and implement changes without the use of a computer. Changing business flows is not novel and has been around before the technological age.
The claims deal with managing changes in business flows. These make the claims also fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of information processing system, image forming apparatus, document conveyor, image forming mechanism, cloud server, processor, information processing terminal, and non-transitory computer readable medium. These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional elements also include insignificant extra solution activity such as, instruct the image forming apparatus to print the new form on the paper which is carried by the document conveyor and printed through the image forming mechanism. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. In addition, examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity include printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further recite variables of the new business flow such as purpose, person in charge, and date. In addition, the dependent claims further recite generating a checklist with respect to the changed target by using an NLP process.
Regarding step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
information processing system, image forming apparatus, document conveyor, image forming mechanism, cloud server, and processor.
Claim 18 recites information processing system and an information processing terminal
Claim 19 recites non-transitory computer readable medium, image forming apparatus, document conveyor, image forming mechanism, cloud server, and processor.
Claim 20 recites method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 20 further recites information processing system, image forming apparatus, document conveyor, image forming mechanism, cloud server, and processor.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic, the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0087.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0087. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Nayak (US20220229636A1) Discloses a workflow construction system for constructing automation workflows that automate user specific processes.
Kurian (US20160371622A1) Discloses a centralized workflow management system that provides for the ability to manage workflows existing throughout a large enterprise regardless of the format of the workflow platform/system providing the workflows.
Kalyanaraman (US20160171413A1) Discloses business process modeling and notation (BPMN), and more particularly to visual representation of cost and critical path analysis for BPMN models and diagrams.
Shepherd (US20080109270A1) Discloses a method of monitoring workflow performance includes selecting a workflow for a job in a production process environment, wherein the job corresponds to a job category.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625