Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 6/1/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7-8, 10 are amended. Claims 11-13 are newly added. Claims 1, 7, 8 are independent claims. Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-13 are pending,
Claims 1, 7-8, 10 are amended,
Claims 11-13 are newly added,
Claims 1, 7, 8 are independent claims,
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 6/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s). Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a) are withdrawn. A new analogous art of workflow management, Elvira (US Publication 20180089602), is cited.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki Takahashi (US Publication 20050105135 A1, hereinafter Takahashi), and in view of David Sierro Elvira et al (US Publication 20180089602 A1, hereinafter Elvira).
As for independent claim 1, Takahashi discloses: An information processing apparatus (Abstract: a data processing apparatus for executing predetermined processes to a file) comprising: a processor configured to : cause a display to display a folder associated with a workflow (Fig. 39 and [0257]-[0258], displaying a workflow folder 5901); in response to a user selecting the folder with electronic data selected, execute the workflow on the electronic data (Fig. 39 and [0257]-[0258], the workflow file 5902 is selected and dragged and dropped to the workflow folder 5901displaying a workflow folder 5901, the workflow is executed);
Takahashi discloses dragging a file to a workflow folder to execute the workflow and discloses one option of the workflow could be used to change the order and the functions/processing contents of the workflows (Fig. 40 and [0259]), also Takahashi discloses display the status of the workflow (Fig. 30, window 5201 displays the status of the associated file and the workflow element; Fig. 33, in window 5201, display the exclamation mark (!) to indicate the state where the user is visually urged to pay attention), but Takahashi does not clearly disclose display status in response to the user selecting the folder without selecting the electronic data, in an analogous art of workflow management, Elvira discloses: in response to the user selecting the folder without selecting the electronic data, cause the display to display a progress status of the workflow in relation to currently being executed on another electronic data that was previously entered into the folder associated with the workflow (Elvira: [0044]-[0047], displaying the status of the workflow that is being executed and providing a visual indication of the status of the workflow, for example, if the detail window 226 displays the currently active status 212, the detail window can display the current workflow component(s) 106 as highlighted; [0050]-[0051], a user can be presented with a display window 270 that presents information associated with the current execution status of a particular instance of the status network 204/workflow 100. For example, the display window 270 can provide a user with information regarding action items 274 requiring the user's attention. Action item 274 can represent a request for the user to approve, reject, or otherwise take action regarding information associated with the status network 204/workflow 100; the user can be presented with a display of prior activity in the status network 204/workflow 100; [0088], the workflow engine 618, through the collaboration component 668, can notify a user when they need to take action regarding a workflow model component, or regarding the status of a workflow model component, such as when a particular workflow model component has been completed or, in at least some cases, has not been completed. The workflow engine 618 can be in communication with other components 670);
Takahashi and Elvira analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing workflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Takahashi using the teachings of Elvira to include displaying the status data of the currently executed workflow in response to user’s selection. It would provide Takahashi’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of managing workflow actions with more flexibility.
As for claim 2, Takahashi-Elvira discloses: cause the display to display a data icon corresponding to the electronic data (Takahashi: Fig. 39 and [0257]-[0258], the workflow file 5902 is selected and dragged and dropped to the workflow folder 5901displaying a workflow folder 5901, the workflow is executed); and when the user drags the data icon onto the folder, determine that the user selects the folder with the electronic data selected (Takshashi: Fig. 39 and [0257]-[0258], the workflow file 5902 is selected and dragged and dropped to the workflow folder 5901displaying a workflow folder 5901, the workflow is executed).
As for claim 3, Takahashi-Elvira discloses: wherein the processor is configured to, when a cursor moving on a screen is placed on the folder by an action of the user without dragging the data icon, determine that the user selects the folder without selecting the electronic data (Takahashi: [0107], when selecting the workflow box 2304, display the state).
As per claim 7, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 9, Takahashi-Elvira discloses: wherein the displayed progress status includes not only the selected folder but also another folder that is associated with the workflow (Takahashi: [0107], when selecting the workflow box 2304, display the state; please note the displayed state data may be associated with any element of the workflow)
As for claim 10, Takahashi-Elvira discloses: wherein the another electronic data was previously entered into the folder by the same user who performed the selection of the folder (Takahashi: [0107], when selecting the workflow box 2304, display the state; Elvira: [0088], the workflow engine 618, through the collaboration component 668, can notify a user when they need to take action regarding a workflow model component, or regarding the status of a workflow model component, such as when a particular workflow model component has been completed or, in at least some cases, has not been completed. The workflow engine 618 can be in communication with other components 670).
As for claim 11, Takahashi-Elvira discloses: wherein the progress status of the workflow is a status of each electronic document that has previously been entered into the workflow (Takahashi: [0107], when selecting the workflow box 2304, display the state; Elvira: [0088], the workflow engine 618, through the collaboration component 668, can notify a user when they need to take action regarding a workflow model component, or regarding the status of a workflow model component, such as when a particular workflow model component has been completed or, in at least some cases, has not been completed. The workflow engine 618 can be in communication with other components 670).
As for claim 12, Takahashi-Elvira discloses: wherein the displayed progress status indicates which process has been completed for the each respective electronic document among a plurality of processes defined in the workflow (Takahashi: [0107], when selecting the workflow box 2304, display the state; Elvira: [0088], the workflow engine 618, through the collaboration component 668, can notify a user when they need to take action regarding a workflow model component, or regarding the status of a workflow model component, such as when a particular workflow model component has been completed or, in at least some cases, has not been completed. The workflow engine 618 can be in communication with other components 670).
As for claim 13, Takahashi-Elvira discloses: wherein the displayed progress status of the workflow indicates which folder among a plurality of folders defined in the workflow stores the each respective electronic document (Takahashi: [0107], when selecting the workflow box 2304, display the state; Elvira: [0045], a status 212 that contains the workflow component 106 associated with the current execution status of the workflow 100 can be highlighted; please note the highlighted component is the folder associated the respective document).
6. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki Takahashi and Elvira as applied on claim 1, and in view of Spencer Villars (US Patent 11307754 B1, hereinafter Villars).
As for claim 4, Takahashi discloses dragging a file to a workflow folder to execute the workflow but does not disclose selecting the folder with the data saved into a clipboard, in an analogous art of executing a workflow by drag-and-drop the selected data, Villars discloses: when the user selects the folder with the electronic data saved into a clipboard in a memory configured to temporarily save data, determine that the user selects the folder with the electronic data selected (Column 14, Lines 32-34, menu window may include any commonly-used action workflows determined as possible actions the user may want to actuate on the object; Column 16, Lines 43-44, the chosen workflow may include storing the link to a clipboard).
Takahashi and Villars are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing workflow by drag-and-drop operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Takahashi using the teachings of Villars to include saving a workflow element to a clipboard. It would provide Takahashi’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of managing workflow actions with more flexibility.
As for claim 5, Takahashi-Elvira-Villars discloses: when the user selects the folder without saving the electronic data into a clipboard in a memory configured to temporarily save data, determine that the user selects the folder without selecting the electronic data (Takahashi: [0107], user may select the workflow folder without moving the file icon).
As for claim 6, Takahashi-Elvira-Villars discloses: wherein the processor is configured to, when the user selects the folder without saving the electronic data into the clipboard, determine that the user selects the folder without selecting the electronic data (Takahashi: [0107], user may select the workflow folder without moving the file icon).
7. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Elvira, and Patrice Calhoun et al (US Publication 20180321830 A1, hereinafter Calhoun).
As per claim 8, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. Further, Takahashi-Elvira does not clearly disclose display a setting change screen, in another analogous art of workflow management, Calhoun discloses: in response to a user selecting the folder with electronic data selected, causing the display to display a setting change screen to be used for changing settings of the workflow (Calhoun: [0080], Within SETTINGS in the Object Library 518, the workflow engine provides the admin with menu options to enable or disable the object (here, Enter Social Network Profile Info activity 850) by checking/unchecking an Enable Object box 852 to make the activity object appear or not appear, respectively, as an activity within the workflow on the canvas);
Takahashi and Calhoun are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing workflow by drag-and-drop operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Takahashi using the teachings of Calhoun to include displaying a workflow setting change screen in response to user input. It would provide Takahashi’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of managing workflow actions with more flexibility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30 am to 5:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/HUA LU/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights