DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the application filed 15 July 2022.
Claims 1-29 are pending. Claims 1, 17, and 29 are independent claims.
Drawings
The examiner accepts the drawings filed 15 July 2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a form designer configured to… (claim 1, lines 8-13)”
“a drag and drop operations module is configured to… (claim 7, lines 1-3)”
“a workflow designing, deploying, and executing module is configured to… (claim 8, lines 1-4)”
“an event triggering module is configured to… (claim 9, lines 1-3)”
“a data accessing module is configured to… (claim 11, lines 1-3)”
“a workflows modification module is configured to… (claim 12, lines 1-4)”
“an alliance execution module is configured to… (claim 13, lines 1-4)”
“an attachments and conversations creating module is configured to… (claim 15, lines 1-5)”
“a tag allocating module is configured to… (claim 16, lines 1-3)”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16, 23, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 the claim includes the following limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a form designer configured to… (claim 1, lines 8-13)”
“a drag and drop operations module is configured to… (claim 7, lines 1-3)”
“a workflow designing, deploying, and executing module is configured to… (claim 8, lines 1-4)”
“an event triggering module is configured to… (claim 9, lines 1-3)”
“a data accessing module is configured to… (claim 11, lines 1-3)”
“a workflows modification module is configured to… (claim 12, lines 1-4)”
“an alliance execution module is configured to… (claim 13, lines 1-4)”
“an attachments and conversations creating module is configured to… (claim 15, lines 1-5)”
“a tag allocating module is configured to… (claim 16, lines 1-3)”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the applicant’s Specification states “The term “module” is used broadly herein and generally refers to a program resident in the memory of the computing devices 102a and 102b. (Figure 1; paragraph 0048).” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-16 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1. Claims 2-16 are rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “”the workflow creation module (line 5).” While there is antecedent basis for a “dynamic workflow creation module (line 3-4)” the claim does not define “the workflow creation module.” Additionally, claim 1 further references “the dynamic workflow creation module (line 8).” This further indicates that a difference between “the workflow creation module” and the “dynamic workflow creation module.” Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-16 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1. Claims 2-16 are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "like weather, and traffic" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 4. Claim 4 fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 2 and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name “Ariba” and “SAP”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).
The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a ”second database” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "”the one or more external enterprises (line 1).” While claim 3 recites “the one or more external data sources comprising one or more enterprises (lines 1-2), the claim does not provide support for “the one or more external enterprises.” Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will treat the claim as though it recites “wherein the one or more enterprises in the second database comprising Ariba, Coupa, SAP, and Salesforce.”
With respect to claims 11 and 23, the term “… access enterprise data easily from the second database… (line 2, emphasis added)” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner when the enterprise data must become available to satisfy the time frame of “eventually.” For this reason, claims 11 and 23 are indefinite.
With respect to claims 14 and 26, the term “eventually makes the enterprise data available… (line 2)” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “eventually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner when the enterprise data must become available to satisfy the time frame of “eventually.” For this reason, claims 14 and 26 are indefinite.
With respect to claim 15 and 27, the claim recites the limitation “the one or more second users (lines 3-4).” Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claims 16 and 28, the claim recites the limitation “the data visibility of form fields/attachments/conversation messages and the like (lines 2-3).” Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 16 and 28, the claim recites the phrase "and the like (line 3)" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-16 are directed toward a system (machine). Claims 17-28 are directed toward a method. Claim 29 is directed toward a computer program product (manufacture). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the elements:
the form designer configured to create one or more dynamic forms based on the one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more users on the first computing device (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observing a user input (one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more users), and based upon the observation creating one or more dynamic forms)
a workflow designer configured to define an enterprise data and create a logical flow of data and actions, the workflow designer configured to create a dynamic variable and one or more dynamic workflows based on the one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more first users on the first computing device (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observing a user input (one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more users), and based on this observation defining an enterprise data and creating a logical flow of data and actions)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a first computing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a dynamic workflow creation module, wherein the processor coupled with the memory configured to store the workflow creation module, the processor configured to respond to one or more user inputs performed by one or more first users on the first computer device
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional elements:
the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a form designer configured to enable the one or more first users to select one or more drag and drop interfaces, set validations, and perform one or more complex operations on the first computing device
whereby the first database configured to store the one or more dynamic form designer configurations and the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements:
the form designer and the workflow designer configure to transmit the one or more dynamic form designer configurations and the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations to a first databased and a business logic tool from the first computing device over a network
the business logic tool configured to receive the one or more dynamic form designer configurations, the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations, and form filled data from the form designer and the workflow designer
whereby the business logic tool configured to transmit the one or more form designer configurations, one or more workflow configurations, and form filled data to the first database and stores the one or more form designer configurations, the one or more workflow configurations and the form filled data in the first database
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claims recite the additional element:
the business logic tool also configured to extract he enterprise data from a second database to provide the one or more required forms to the one or more first users when the one or more required forms are not available in the first database
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements:
whereby the form designer and the workflow designer are configured to export the one or more dynamic forms, the dynamic variable, and the one or more dynamic workflows as one or more XML or JSON configurations, the one or more XML or JSON configurations comprises one or more dynamic form designer configurations and one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations
the business logic tool configured to provide one or more required forms to the one or more first users by retrieving the one or more form designer configurations, the one or more workflow configurations and the form filled data stored in the first database
These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a first computing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a dynamic workflow creation module, wherein the processor coupled with the memory configured to store the workflow creation module, the processor configured to respond to one or more user inputs performed by one or more first users on the first computer device
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional elements:
the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a form designer configured to enable the one or more first users to select one or more drag and drop interfaces, set validations, and perform one or more complex operations on the first computing device
whereby the first database configured to store the one or more dynamic form designer configurations and the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements:
the form designer and the workflow designer configure to transmit the one or more dynamic form designer configurations and the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations to a first databased and a business logic tool from the first computing device over a network
the business logic tool configured to receive the one or more dynamic form designer configurations, the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations, and form filled data from the form designer and the workflow designer
whereby the business logic tool configured to transmit the one or more form designer configurations, one or more workflow configurations, and form filled data to the first database and stores the one or more form designer configurations, the one or more workflow configurations and the form filled data in the first database
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claims recite the additional element:
the business logic tool also configured to extract he enterprise data from a second database to provide the one or more required forms to the one or more first users when the one or more required forms are not available in the first database
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements:
whereby the form designer and the workflow designer are configured to export the one or more dynamic forms, the dynamic variable, and the one or more dynamic workflows as one or more XML or JSON configurations, the one or more XML or JSON configurations comprises one or more dynamic form designer configurations and one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations
the business logic tool configured to provide one or more required forms to the one or more first users by retrieving the one or more form designer configurations, the one or more workflow configurations and the form filled data stored in the first database
These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the second database comprising one or more external data sources
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the second database comprising one or more external data sources
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the one or more external data sources comprising one or more enterprises and/or publicly available data like weather, and traffic
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the one or more external data sources comprising one or more enterprises and/or publicly available data like weather, and traffic
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 3. The analysis of claim 3 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the one or more external enterprises in the second database comprising Ariba, Coupa, SAP, and Salesforce
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the one or more external enterprises in the second database comprising Ariba, Coupa, SAP, and Salesforce
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 3. The analysis of claim 3 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the one or more external enterprises in the second database comprising Ariba, Coupa, SAP, and Salesforce
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the one or more external enterprises in the second database comprising Ariba, Coupa, SAP, and Salesforce
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the form designer is configured to create web-based forms with HTML5 UI elements
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the form designer is configured to create web-based forms with HTML5 UI elements
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the element:
wherein the business logic tool is a business process modeling notation tool which is intelligent in obtaining the enterprise data available from the one or more external data sources and manages the flow of data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observing (obtaining) enterprise data and managing the flow of data)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprises a drag and drop operations module is configured to enable the one ore more first users to select the one or more required drag and drop interfaces to create the one or more dynamic workflows
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprises a drag and drop operations module is configured to enable the one or more first users to select the one or more required drag and drop interfaces to create the one or more dynamic workflows
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a workflow designing, deploying, and executing module is configured to enable the one or more first users to design, deploy, and execute trade workflows with the business logic tool to address the needs of the second users
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a workflow designing, deploying, and executing module is configured to enable the one or more first users to design, deploy, and execute trade workflows with the business logic tool to address the needs of the second users
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
With respect to claim 9, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an event triggering module is configured to address extended and complex trading scenarios with a variable due data, event triggers, and alert mechanisms
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an event triggering module is configured to address extended and complex trading scenarios with a variable due data, event triggers, and alert mechanisms
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10:
With respect to claim 10, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the event triggers and alert mechanism comprising messages, SMS, and email notification, multi-language, ready APIs integrated
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the event triggers and alert mechanism comprising messages, SMS, and email notification, multi-language, ready APIs integrated
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a data accessing module is configured to access enterprise data easily from the second database to create the one or more dynamic workflows
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a data accessing module is configured to access enterprise data easily from the second database to create the one or more dynamic workflows
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12:
With respect to claim 12, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a workflow modification module is configured to enable the one or more first users to modify and deploy the business workflows as per changing business nodes without any internal code changes
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a workflow modification module is configured to enable the one or more first users to modify and deploy the business workflows as per changing business nodes without any internal code changes
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13:
With respect to claim 13, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an alliance execution module is configured to perform intelligent enterprise alliances and realizes a training partner’s business logic through the dynamic workflow designer configurations and the dynamic form designer configurations
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an alliance execution module is configured to perform intelligent enterprise alliances and realizes a training partner’s business logic through the dynamic workflow designer configurations and the dynamic form designer configurations
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14:
With respect to claim 14, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the alliance execution module eventually makes the enterprise data available from the one or more external data sources and manages the flow of data for the alliance execution
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the alliance execution module eventually makes the enterprise data available from the one or more external data sources and manages the flow of data for the alliance execution
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
With respect to claim 15, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an attachment and conversations creating module is configure to create one or more attachments and conversations for a task, where the one or more first users and the one or more section users collaborate exchanging messages and documents between the first computing device and a second computing device
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an attachment and conversations creating module is configure to create one or more attachments and conversations for a task, where the one or more first users and the one or more section users collaborate exchanging messages and documents between the first computing device and a second computing device
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16:
With respect to claim 16, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a tag allocation module is configured to allocate one or more tags for the data visibility of form fields/attachments/conversation messages and the like
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a tag allocation module is configured to allocate one or more tags for the data visibility of form fields/attachments/conversation messages and the like
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17:
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 18:
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 5. The analysis of claim 5 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 19:
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 20:
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 7. The analysis of claim 7 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 21:
With respect to claim 21, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 22:
With respect to claim 22, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 9. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 23:
With respect to claim 23, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 11. The analysis of claim 11 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 24:
With respect to claim 24, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 12. The analysis of claim 12 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 25:
With respect to claim 25, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 13. The analysis of claim 13 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 26:
With respect to claim 26, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 14. The analysis of claim 14 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 27:
With respect to claim 27, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 15. The analysis of claim 15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 28:
With respect to claim 28, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 16. The analysis of claim 16 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 29:
With respect to claim 29, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11-12, 17, 20, 23-24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry (WO 03/038658, published 8 May 2003) and further in view of Shrotri et al. (US 2023/0403302, filed 8 June 2022, hereafter Shorotri) and further in view of Geigel (US 12,265,801, filed 29 December 2021).
As per independent claim 1, Perry discloses a computer-implemented system for creating dynamic workflows to address the needs of a supply chain, comprising:
a first computing device (page 1, lines 24-30: Here, a client computer is disclosed) and a dynamic workflow creation module, wherein the processor coupled with the memory configured to store the workflow creation module (page 6, line 24- page 7, line 8: Here, the workflow processor is a program stored on a server)
the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a form designer configured to enable set validations (page 11, lines 29-32: Here, one of the operations may include data validation) , and perform one or more complex operations on the first computing device (page 5, lines 10-19: Here, a workflow response document is generated in response to receiving a plurality of workflow instructions for retrieving data, converting the data into mark-up fragments, storing the fragment in a response document, and iterating through the process to create a completed response document)
a workflow designer configured to define an enterprise data and create a logical flow of data and actions, the workflow designer configured to create a dynamic variable and one or more dynamic workflows (page 6, line 24- page 7, line 12: Here, a workflow processor processes a workflow document to generate an output workflow document. This includes parsing the workflow document to extract instructions, execute the instructions to retrieve data, and generate intermediate code in XML. The intermediate code is then converted into markup language fragments and used to populate a workflow response document presented to the user on a client machine. Further, these tasks are executed in the order specified by the workflow document)
whereby the workflow designer are configured to export the one or more dynamic forms, the dynamic variable and the one or more dynamic workflows as one or more XML or JSON configurations (page 6, line 24- page 7, line 12: Here, the dynamic workflow data is provided as XML data), the one or more XML and JSON configurations comprises one or more dynamic form designer configurations and one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations (page 7, lines 14-18: Here, workflow instructions are written in a markup language, such as XML)
a first database (page 18, lines 19-30: Here, a workflow document may be stored on a remote server or database)
whereby the first database configured to store the one or more dynamic form designer configurations and the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations (page 18, lines 19-30: Here, a workflow document may be stored on a remote server or database)
the business logic tool configured to receive the one or more dynamic designer configurations, the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations and the data filled data from the designer and the workflow designer (page 20, lines 21-31: Here, a designer separates the format and style (design) elements from the XML workflow fragments)
the business logic tool configured to provide data to the one or more first users by retrieving the one or more form designer configurations, the one or more workflow configurations and the form filled data stored in the first database (Figure 4 and 6; page 23, line 15- page 24, line 8: Here, a workflow document is received. The workflow document is parsed and reads the first XML instruction to be executed by the workflow processor. The XML instruction is used to retrieve dynamic content for inclusion in a webpage by making a database call. Additionally, the XSLT formatting instructions are obtained to format the data for generating the output response document)
the business logic tool also configured to extract the enterprise data from a second database to provide the one or more required content to the one or more first users when the one or more required forms are not available in the first database (page 23, line 15- page 24, line 8: Here, a second “different server or database” may be referenced by an XML instruction to collect data from the second database to be used to generate the output response document)
Perry fails to specifically disclose:
a first computing device comprising a processor, a memory
the processor configured to response to one or more user inputs performed by one or more first users on the first computing device
enable the one or more first users to select one or more drag and drop interfaces
wherein by the form designer configured to create one or more dynamic forms based on the one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more users on the first computing device
create… one or more dynamic workflows based on the one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more first users on the first computing device
whereby the form designer is configured to export the one or more dynamic forms
the form designer and the workflow designer configured to transmit the one or more dynamic form designer configurations and the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations and a business logic tool from the first computing device over a network
whereby the business logic tool configured to transmit the one or more form designer configurations, one or more workflow configurations and form filled data to the first database and stores the one or more form designer configurations, the one or more workflow configurations and the form filled data in the first database
However, Shrotri, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward managing workflows, discloses:
a first computing device comprising a processor, a memory (paragraph 0019: Here, a client device includes a processor and memory)
the processor configured to response to one or more user inputs performed by one or more first users on the first computing device (paragraph 0055: Here, user input is received via the workflow creation user interface including a drag-and-drop canvas user interface area that shows the workflow objects in a workflow view)
enable the one or more first users to select one or more drag and drop interfaces (paragraph 0055: Here, user input is received via the workflow creation user interface including a drag-and-drop canvas user interface area that shows the workflow objects in a workflow view)
create… one or more dynamic workflows based on the one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more first users on the first computing device (Figure 3; paragraph 0067: Here, a dynamic workflow is created based upon a user interface allowing for drag-and-drop actions within the workflow view canvas)
the workflow designer configured to transmit the one or more dynamic form designer configurations and the one or more dynamic workflow designer configurations and a business logic tool from the first computing device over a network (Figure 1; paragraph 0075: Here, a plurality of client devices are arranged across a network and created workflows can be transmitted to a client device (Figure 3, item 324))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Shroti with Perry, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating dynamic workflows based upon user interactions (Shrotri: paragraphs 0040 and 0044).
Additionally, Geigel, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward generating a workflow, discloses:
wherein by the form designer configured to create one or more dynamic forms based on the one or more drag and drop interfaces selected by the one or more users on the first computing device (Figures 4-5; column 10, lines 7-23: Here, a user creates a form using a form interface by dragging and dropping form elements onto a canvas)
whereby the form designer is configured to export the one or more dynamic forms (Figure 7; column 11, lines 35-43: Here, forms are exported to the database for storage)
the form designer configured to transmit the one or more dynamic form designer configurations (Figure 8; column 11, lines 44-60: Here, data is received into the form and transmitted to the database for storage)
whereby the business logic tool configured to transmit the one or more form designer configurations and form filled data to the first database and stores the one or more form designer configurations and the form filled data in the first database (Figures 7-8; column 11, lines 35-60: Here, forms are exported to the database for storage and data is received into the form and stored within the database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Geigel with Perry-Shrotri, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for creating and using forms for managing workflow (Geigel: column 10, lines 7-23).
As per dependent claim 2, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitation similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry discloses wherein the second database comprising one or more external data sources (page 23, line 15- page 24, line 8: Here, a second “different server or database” is an external data source).
As per dependent claim 3, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry discloses wherein the one or more external data sources comprises one or more enterprises and/or publicly available data like weather and traffic (page 2, lines 19-28: Here, publicly available data including weather and travel (traffic) information).
As per dependent claim 7, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Geigel discloses wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprises a drag and drop operations module is configured to enable the one or more first users to select the one or more required drag and drop interfaces to create the one or more dynamic workflows (Figures 4-5; column 10, lines 7-23: Here, a user creates a form using a form interface by dragging and dropping form elements onto a canvas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Geigel with Perry-Shrotri, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for creating and using forms for managing workflow (Geigel: column 10, lines 7-23).
As per dependent claim 11, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry discloses wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a data accessing module is configured to access enterprise data easily from the second database to create the one or more dynamic workflows (page 23, line 15- page 24, line 8: Here, a second “different server or database” may be referenced by an XML instruction to collect data from the second database to be used to generate the output response document).
As per dependent claim 12, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Shrotri discloses wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising a workflow modification module is configured to enable the one or more first users to modify and deploy the business workflows as per changing business needs without any internal code changes device (paragraph 0055: Here, user input is received via the workflow creation user interface including a drag-and-drop canvas user interface area that shows the workflow objects in a workflow view. Here, the workflow is created based upon the user interaction with the interface and does not require the use to provide coding changes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Shroti with Perry, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating dynamic workflows based upon user interactions (Shrotri: paragraphs 0040 and 0044).
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 7. Claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claims 23-24, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 11-12, respectively. Claims 23-24 are rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 29, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. Claim 29 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel and further in view of Nadimpalli et al. (US 2018/0247648, published 30 August 2018, hereafter Nadimpalli).
As per dependent claim 4, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 3, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more external enterprises in the second database comprising Ariba, Coupa, SAP, and Salesforce.
However, Nadimpalli, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward interacting with enterprise systems, discloses wherein the one or more external enterprises comprises Ariba (paragraph 0024), Coupa (paragraph 0024), SAP (paragraph 0024), and Salesforce (paragraph 0085). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Nadimpalli with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for accessing a broad range of back-end systems to assist in managing operations (Nadimpalli: paragraph 0024).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel and further in view of Sarferaz (US 2016/0055222, published 25 February 2016, hereafter Sarferaz).
As per dependent claim 5, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry discloses use of HTML (page 6, line 24- page 7, line 8). However, Perry fails to specifically disclose wherein the form designer is configured to create web-pages forms with HTML5 UI elements.
However, Geigel discloses the form designer is configured to create forms (Figures 4-5; column 10, lines 7-23: Here, a user creates a form using a form interface by dragging and dropping form elements onto a canvas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Geigel with Perry-Shrotri, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for creating and using forms for managing workflow (Geigel: column 10, lines 7-23).
Additionally, Sarferaz discloses using HTML5 UI elements (paragraph 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sarferaz with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for leveraging a standard, such as HTML5, to yield predictable results when interacting with the interface.
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 5. Claim 18 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel and further in view of Wookey et al. (US 10657586, patented 19 May 2020, hereafter Wookey).
As per dependent claim 6, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry fails to specifically disclose wherein the business logic tool is a business process modeling notation (BPMN) tool which is intelligent in obtaining the enterprise data available from the one or more external data sources and manages the flow of data.
However, Wookey, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward managing flow, discloses wherein the business logic tool is a business process modeling notation (BPMN) tool which is intelligent in obtaining the enterprise data available from the one or more external data sources and manages the flow of data (column 47, lines 25-41: Here, a business processing flow is defined and managed through the business process management system. The business process may be documented using BPMN)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Wookey with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for documenting a business process flow using a pre-defined notation, such as BPMN (Wookey: column 47, line 25-47) within a workflow.
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 6. Claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8-9 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel and further in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2020/0143476, published 7 May 2020, hereafter Sandhu).
As per dependent claim 8, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry discloses wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprises a workflow designing, deploying, and executing module configured to enable the one or more first users to design, deploy, and execute workflows (page 6, line 24- page 7, line 12: Here, a workflow processor processes a workflow document to generate an output workflow document. This includes parsing the workflow document to extract instructions, execute the instructions to retrieve data, and generate intermediate code in XML. The intermediate code is then converted into markup language fragments and used to populate a workflow response document presented to the user on a client machine. Further, these tasks are executed in the order specified by the workflow document).
Perry fails to specifically disclose executing trade workflows with the business logic tool to address the needs of the second users.
However, Sandhu, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward business workflows, discloses executing trade workflows with the business logic tool to address the needs of the second users (Abstract; paragraph 0172: Here, a trade workflow is managed and performed. This includes an interface to allow for users to interactively communicate and trade financial instruments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sandhu with Perry-Shrotri-Geiger, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for providing a platform for conducting interactive and automated trading workflows (Sandhu: paragraph 0172).
As per dependent claim 9, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry fails to specifically disclose wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an event triggering module is configured to address extended and complex trading scenarios with a variable due date, event triggers, and alert mechanisms.
However, Sandhu, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward business workflows, discloses an event triggering module is configured to address extended and complex trading scenarios (paragraph 0172) with a variable due date (paragraph 1587), event triggers (paragraph 0893), and alert mechanisms (paragraph 1587).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sandhu with Perry-Shrotri-Geiger, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for providing a platform for conducting interactive and automated trading workflows (Sandhu: paragraph 0172).
With respect to claims 21-22, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 8-9, respectively. Claims 21-22 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, Geigel, and Sandhu and further in view of Torii et al. (US 2013/0238356, published 12 September 2013, hereafter Torii).
As per dependent claim 10, Perry, Shroti, Geigel, and Sandhu disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 9, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry fails to specifically disclose wherein the event trigger and alert mechanism comprising messages, SMS, and email notifications, multi-lingual, ready API integrated.
However, Torii, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward providing alerts, discloses wherein the event trigger and alert mechanism comprising messages (paragraph 0106), SMS (paragraph 0106), and email notifications (paragraph 0106), multi-lingual (paragraph 0052), ready API integrated (Figure 8; paragraph 0019: Here, an application provides data collection and processing to identify alerts (paragraph 0019). These alerts may be provided via messages, such as RSS, SMS, and email (paragraph 0106). Additionally, multi-lingual contents may be provided either through machine and/or manual translation support (paragraph 0052)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Torii with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel-Sandhu, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for providing multiple different channels for providing alerts, including RSS, SMS, and email (Torii: paragraph 0106).
Claims 13-14 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel and further in view of Janowski et al. (US 2007/0038549, published 15 February 2007, hereafter Janowski).
As per dependent claim 13, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry fails to specifically disclose wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprises an alliance execution module is configured to perform intelligent enterprise alliances and realizes a trading partner’s business logic through the dynamic workflow designer configurations and dynamic form designer configurations.
However, Janowski discloses wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprises an alliance execution module is configured to perform intelligent enterprise alliances and realizes a trading partner’s business logic through the dynamic workflow designer configurations and dynamic form designer configurations (paragraph 0023: Here, a trading partner is identified and their associated business logic is identified. A translation logic is used to map exchange specific protocols to allow for determining trade parameters and displaying a trader GUI (paragraph 0024)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Janowski with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for representing trade parameters for a trading partner within a trader interface (Janowski: paragraph 0024).
As per dependent claim 14, Perry, Shrotri, Geigel, and Janowski disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 13, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Janowski discloses wherein the alliance execution module eventually makes the enterprise data available from one or more external data sources and manages the flow of data for the alliance execution (paragraphs 0023-0024: Here, data is shared between the electronic exchanges and presented to the user within the user interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Janowski with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for representing trade parameters for a trading partner within a trader interface (Janowski: paragraph 0024).
With respect to claims 25-26, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 13-14, respectively. Claims 25-26 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel and further in view of Kalinichenko et al. (US 2023/0032159, filed 30 July 2021, hereafter Kalinichenko).
As per dependent claim 15, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry fails to specifically disclose wherein the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an attachments and conversations creating module is configure to create one or more attachments and conversations for a task, wherein the one or more first users and the one or more second users collaborate exchanging messages and documents between the first computing device and a second computing device.
However, Kalinichenko, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a collaboration interface, discloses the dynamic workflow creation module comprising an attachments (paragraph 0040: Here, files, such as documents, images, videos, and/or other files may be attached in a compose pane) and conversations creating module is configure to create one or more attachments and conversations for a task (paragraph 0032: Here, a collaboration session includes messages), wherein the one or more first users and the one or more second users collaborate exchanging messages and documents between the first computing device and a second computing device (Figure 1B; paragraph 0027: Here, a plurality of computing devices may be in communication in a collaboration session). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Kalinichenko with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for establishing a collaboration session between a plurality of users (Kalinichenko: paragraph 0003).
With respect to claim 27, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 15. Claim 27 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel and further in view of Morris (US 2014/0365486, published 11 December 2014) and further in view of Marques et al. (US 2020/0090003, published 19 March 2020, hereafter Marques).
As per dependent claim 16, Perry, Shrotri, and Geigel disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Perry fails to specifically disclose a tag allocating module is configured to allocate one or more tags for the data visibility of form fields, attachments, conversation messages, and the like.
However, Morris, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward tagging resources, discloses tag allocating module is configured to allocate one or more tags for the data visibility of attachments (paragraph 0127), conversation messages (paragraph 0127), and the like (paragraph 0127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Morris with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for tagging to categorize and create relationships between resources (Morris: paragraph 0006).
Additionally, Marques discloses tag allocating module is configured to allocate one or more tags for form fields (paragraph 0071: Here, an address and entity tag are assigned to indicate form fields associated with the billing address). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Marques with Perry-Shrotri-Geigel-Morris, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for tagging form data with identifiable information (Marques: paragraph 0071).
With respect to claim 28, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 16. Claim 28 is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Naidoo et al. (US 11216159): Discloses a configuration for a workflow at a processing plant based upon graphical objects in a user interface (Abstract)
Harrison (US 10102012): Discloses configurable workflows that do not require re-compiling of the application (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128