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
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 12-14 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims as amended recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technical field. Specifically Applicant argues Applicant’s amendments and paragraph 0049. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed 12/22/2025, first with respect to the “thereby” clause, the Examiner interprets this limitation to suggest or make optional but not require any limitations to be performed, therefore not limiting claim scope (see MPEP 2111.04). Since this claim does not limit claim scope, the Examiner interprets this limitation to merely recite the abstract idea without any additional elements with respect to practical application or significantly more.
However in the efforts of compact prosecution, if it was interpreted that the claim limitation did limit scope with the Examiner does not contend based on the above avoiding using processing and resources of one or more entities associated with the system that would result from the user having to navigate to one of more plurality of workflow channels is mental process and human activity steps as broadly recited in the claims, therefore part of the abstract idea. Specifically it is a mental process step or human activity step for a user to combine different information into one display to avoid having to look at different files or resources, therefore avoiding using processing power and resources like time, as broadly recited in the claims.
The additional elements that instead the entity is “one or more servers” and the resources are “computing” merely results in apply it, as broadly recited in the result-oriented claim language. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a generic purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically here the claims lack details as to how the claim computer performs the modifications or the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, which is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Further implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate into a practical application similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Further this is nothing more than generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/22/2025 with respect to the “wherein clause, it is an abstract idea (mental process and human activity) step to systematically by an entity search data stores maintained by an entity to identify workflow content that satisfies at least one channel relevance parameter, and determine by an entity occurrences of different workflow being added, deleted, or updated and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel relevance parameter, as broadly recited in the claim. The additional result based claiming (result-oriented) elements that this is being performed by software (e.g. a workflow data crawler and a workflow data listener), the information is processed “automatically”, and that the entity is “one or more servers” merely again results in apply it. Specifically here the claims lack details as to how the claim computer performs the modifications or the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, which is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. the receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a generic purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate into a practical application similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Further this is nothing more than generally linking it to the field of computers.
As to Applicant’s arguments with respect to paragraph 0049 of the specification, specifically “For instance, Applicant's Specification states that "[b]ecause the system-generated workflow content provided to users in the respective workflow ensemble channels is limited to the content that is determined to be relevant and/or timely to a respective user, processing demands are reduced for the servers and other computing devices associated with the group-based communication system," that "[f]or example, processing demands are reduced at least because the ensemble-relevance parameters focus the processing demands on the content that is determined to be relevant and/or timely to a respective user," and that "[a]s such, the group based communication system need not process content that does not satisfy the ensemble relevance
parameters", the Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argued section of Applicant’s specification merely recites the mental process and or certain method of organizing human activity step of only searching for in resources relevant content and not searching for undesired content (e.g. if only interested in files from the year 2000, only looking and keeping files from the year 2000 and not looking at files from 1980). This reduces processing demands for the entities searching as they only have to look in a small portion of the overall records. Therefore this improvement is found in the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states that the abstract idea cannot provide the improvement (See MPEP 2106.05(a), cited herein: However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology). Therefore the Examiner finds the claims do not improve technology as defined in MPEP 2106.05(a)).
The additional elements that this is being generally performed on a computing system, as discussed in paragraph 0049, merely results in a result oriented solution, that lacks details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here Applicant sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 14 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims require a computing device and therefore cannot amount to a mental process.
The Examiner strongly disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(a) clearly discusses claims can require a computer and still recite a mental process, cited herein:
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Therefore based on the above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 18, Applicant argues that the combination of Anderson and Wynn does not teach Applicant’s claims as amended. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the prior art rejection below, the Examiner has provided citations for where the Examiner interprets the prior art of Wynn to teach Applicant’s amendments.
On Remarks pages 16-17, Applicant argues the other claims in view of the previous arguments with respect to claim 1. However as detailed above in section 5 the Examiner interprets the combination of Anderson and Wynn to teach amended claim 1, therefore the Examiner finds the argument not persuasive.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
-Systematically searching, by a workflow data crawler associated with the one more servers, data stored in a datastore maintained by the one or more servers to identify workflow content that satisfies the at least one channel-relevance parameter (see claim 1)
-determining, by a workflow data listener associated by the one or more servers, first occurrences of different workflows being added, deleted, or updated and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel-relevance parameter
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.
From review of the specification the following appears to be the corresponding structure as described in the specification:
-workflow data crawler (see paragraphs 0055-0058, Examiner’s note: software stored on a computer readable medium being executed by a processor to perform the functions).
-workflow listener (see paragraphs 0055-0058, Examiner’s note: software stored on a computer readable medium being executed by a processor to perform the functions).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project. The idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project is a mental process. Further the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project is social activities which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which is a certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims recite many different opinions, judgments, calculations, human activities, that could be performed by a human or human operator in the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project.
Limitations that are not bolded and underlined are considered part of the above abstract idea. Additional elements beyond the abstract idea are bolded and underlined for distinction.
1. A method of managing a workflow, the method comprising:
automatically subscribing a user to a plurality of workflow channels of a group-based communication system based on at least one channel-relevance parameter matching parameters associated with the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the at least one channel-relevance parameter represents information about the user and user activity of the user within the group-based communication system,
generating, within the group-based communication system, a workflow ensemble channel for the user comprising a subset of workflow threads from the plurality of workflow channels, the subset of workflow threads for the user based on at least one channel-relevance parameter;
providing the workflow ensemble channel for display in a group-based communication system interface on a client device of the user, wherein action requests associated with the subset of workflow threads are automatically presented within the workflow ensemble channel without the user having to navigate to the plurality of workflow channels, thereby avoiding an expenditure of compute processing and computing resources of one or more servers associated with the group-based communication system that would result from the user navigating to the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the workflow ensemble channel includes at least a first pane that visually depicts a listing of the plurality of workflow channels, a second pane that visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels, and a third pane that visually depicts pending actions associates with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow threads, wherein each of the first pane, the second pane, and the third pane are simulateantously displayed within the workflow channel, wherein the action requests and the pending action are identified and automatically populated within the workflow ensemble channel by:
systematically searching, by a workflow data crawler associated with the one or more servers, data stored in a datastore maintained by the one or more servers to identify workflow content that satisfies the at least one channel-relevance parameters; and
determining, by a workflow data listener associated by the one or more servers, first occurrences of different workflows being added, deleted, or updated and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one-channel relevance parameter;
receiving an action request associated with the user for a workflow thread of the subset of workflow threads;
responsive to determining that the action request satisfies at least one action- relevance parameter, automatically providing the action request for display in the workflow ensemble channel,
receiving, from the user and via the group-based communication system interface, a user action response to the action request;
responsive to the user action response, automatically removing the action request from display within the workflow ensemble channel and updating a response status for the action request;
and providing the response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the action request is further provided for display in a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to the user action response, automatically causing the user to be unsubscribed from a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a swarming indication based on group-based communication system content;
and generating the action request responsive to the swarming indication,
wherein the action request comprises an invitation for the user to join a swarm associated with at least one of the plurality of workflow channels.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to the user action response, determining a next action request associated with an additional user, wherein the next action request satisfies at an additional action-relevance parameter associated with the additional user;
and responsive to determining that the next action request satisfies the additional action-relevance parameter, providing the next action request for display in an additional workflow ensemble channel, the additional workflow ensemble channel having been generated for the additional user,
wherein the additional workflow ensemble channel comprises the workflow thread,
and wherein the action request defines a link in an action chain associated with the workflow and the next action request defines an additional link in the action chain.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising:
receiving, from the additional user and via the group-based communication system interface, a next action response responsive to the next action request;
responsive to the next action response, updating a next response status for the next action request;
providing the next response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel for the user;
and providing the next response status for display in the additional workflow ensemble channel for the additional user.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the action request comprises a request to approve or reject deal terms.
8. A workflow management system, comprising:
qat least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform a method of managing a workflow, the method comprising:
automatically subscribing a user to a plurality of workflow channels of a group-based communication system based on at least one channel-relevance parameter matching parameters associated with the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the at least one channel-relevance parameter represents information about the user and user activity of the user within the group-based communication system;
generating , within the group-based communication system, a workflow ensemble channel for the user comprising a subset of workflow threads from the plurality of workflow channels, the subset of workflow threads for the user based on the at least one channel- relevance parameter;
providing the workflow ensemble channel for display in a group-based communication system interface on a client device of the user, wherein action requests associated with the subset of workflow threads are automatically presented within the workflow ensemble channel without the user having to navigate to the plurality of workflow channels, thereby avoiding expenditure of compute processing and computing resources of one or more servers associated with the group-based communication system that would result from the user navigating to the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the workflow ensemble channel includes at least a first pane that visually depicts a listing of the plurality of workflow channels, a second pane that visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels, and a third pane that visually depicts pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow threads, wherein each of the first pane, the second pane, and the third pane are simulateantously displayed within the workflow ensemble channel, wherein the action requests and the pending actions are identified and automatically populated within the workflow ensemble channel by:
systematically searching, by a workflow crawler associated with the one or more servers, data stored in a datastore maintained by the one or more servers to identify workflow content that satisfies the at least one channel-relevance parameter; and
determining, by a workflow data listener associated by the one or more servers, first occurrences of different workflows being added, deleted, or updated and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel-relevance parameter;
receiving an action request associated with the user for a workflow thread of the subset of workflow threads;
responsive to determining that the action request satisfies at least one action-relevance parameter, automatically providing the action request for display in the workflow ensemble channel;
receiving, from the user and via the group-based communication system interface, a user action response to the action request;
responsive to the user action response, automatically removing the action request from display within the workflow ensemble channel and updating a response status for the action request;
and providing the response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel.
9. The workflow management system of claim 8, wherein the action request is further provided for display in a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread.
10. The workflow management system of claim 8, the method further comprising: responsive to the user action response, automatically causing the user to be unsubscribed from a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread.
11. The workflow management system of claim 8, the method further comprising:
determining a swarming indication based on group-based communication system content; and generating the action request responsive to the swarming indication, wherein the action request comprises an invitation for the user to join a swarm associated with at least one of the plurality of workflow channels.
12. The workflow management system of claim 8, the method further comprising:
responsive to the user action response, determining a next action request associated with an additional user, wherein the next action request satisfies at an additional action-relevance parameter associated with the additional user;
and responsive to determining that the next action request satisfies the additional action-relevance parameter, providing the next action request for display in an additional workflow ensemble channel, the additional workflow ensemble channel having been generated for the additional user,
wherein the additional workflow ensemble channel comprises the workflow thread,
and wherein the action request defines a link in an action chain associated with the workflow and the next action request defines an additional link in the action chain.
13. The workflow management system of claim 12, the method further comprising:
receiving, from the additional user and via the group-based communication system interface, a next action response responsive to the next action request;
responsive to the next action response, updating a next response status for the next action request;
providing the next response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel for the user;
and providing the next response status for display in the additional workflow ensemble channel for the additional user.
14. The workflow management system of claim 8, wherein the action request comprises a request to approve or reject deal terms.
15. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform a method of managing a workflow, the method comprising:
automatically subscribing a user to a plurality of workflow channels of a group-based communication system based on at least one channel-relevance parameter matching parameters associated with the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the at least one channel-relevance parameter represents information about the user and user activity of the user within the group-based communication system;
generating, within the group-based communication system, a workflow ensemble channel for the user comprising a subset of workflow threads from the plurality of workflow channels, the subset of workflow threads for the user based on at least one channel- relevance parameter;
providing the workflow ensemble channel for display in a group-based communication system interface on a client device of the user, wherein action requests associated with the subset of workflow threads are automatically presented within the workflow ensemble channel without the user having to navigate to the plurality of workflow channels, thereby avoiding an expenditure of computer processing and computing resources of one or more servers associated with the group-based communication system that would result from the user navigating to the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the workflow ensemble channel includes at least a first pane that visually depicts a listing of the plurality of workflow channels, a second pane that visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels, and a third pane that visually depicts pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow threads, wherein each of the first pane, the second pane, and the third pane are simulateantously displayed within the ensemble channel, wherein the action requests and pending actions are identified and automatically populated within the workflow ensemble channel by:
systematically searching, by a workflow data crawler associated with the one or more servers, data stored in a datastore maintained by the one or more servers to identify workflow content that satisfied the at least one channel-relevance parameter;
and determining, by a workflow data listener associated by the one or more servers, first occurrences of different workflows being added, deleted, or updated and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel-relevance parameter;
receiving an action request associated with the user for a workflow thread of the subset of workflow threads;
responsive to determining that the action request satisfies at least one action-relevance parameter, automatically providing the action request for display in the workflow ensemble channel, receiving, from the user and via the group-based communication system interface, a user action response to the action request;
responsive to the user action response, automatically removing the action request from display within the workflow ensemble channel and updating a response status for the action request;
and providing the response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel.
16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, the method further comprising:
responsive to the user action response, automatically causing the user to be unsubscribed from a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread.
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, the method further comprising:
determining a swarming indication based on group-based communication system content;
and generating the action request responsive to the swarming indication,
wherein the action request comprises an invitation for the user to join a swarm associated with at least one of the plurality of workflow channels.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, the method further comprising:
responsive to the user action response, determining a next action request associated with an additional user, wherein the next action request satisfies at an additional action-relevance parameter associated with the additional user;
and responsive to determining that the next action request satisfies the additional action-relevance parameter, providing the next action request for display in an additional workflow ensemble channel, the additional workflow ensemble channel having been generated for the additional user,
wherein the additional workflow ensemble channel comprises the workflow thread,
and wherein the action request defines a link in an action chain associated with the workflow and the next action request defines an additional link in the action chain.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, the method further comprising: receiving, from the additional user and via the group-based communication system interface, a next action response responsive to the next action request;
responsive to the next action response, updating a next response status for the next action request;
providing the next response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel for the user;
and providing the next response status for display in the additional workflow ensemble channel for the additional user.
20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the action request comprises a request to approve or reject deal terms.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite limitations a human operator could reasonably and practically perform in the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project. Specifically a user could generate a combined workflow for projects based on projects they were subscribed to or part of as well as display that information on a display to view that aggregated or combined information and remove information that is no longer needed. Further a human or humans could display on a display three different pieces of information simultaneously that include information regarding the aggregated information. The fact that these limitations that could reasonably and practically be performed by a human operator are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed “automatically”, “on a client device”, and the pieces of displayed information are a “panes” do not result in a practical application. Rather instead this merely recites claims that invokes a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. the receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a generic purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate into a practical application similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Further limitations a human operator could reasonably and practically perform in the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project that are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed “automatically”, “on a client device”, and the pieces of displayed information are a “panes” merely recite generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of computers.
Further claims 3, 8, 10, 15-16, that recite the above same limitations of “automatically” , “on a client device” , and panes, result in the same analysis above.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed 12/22/2025, first with respect to the “thereby” clause, the Examiner interprets this limitation to suggest or make optional but not require any limitations to be performed, therefore not limiting claim scope (see MPEP 2111.04). Since this claim does not limit claim scope, the Examiner interprets this limitation to merely recite the abstract idea without any additional elements with respect to practical application or significantly more. However in the efforts of compact prosecution, if it was interpreted that the claim did limit scope with the Examiner does not contend based on the above avoiding using processing and resources of one or more entities associated with the system that would result from the user having to navigate to one of more plurality of workflow channels is mental process and human activity steps as broadly recited in the claims, therefore part of the abstract idea. Specifically it is a mental process step or human activity step for a user to combine different information into one display to avoid having to look at different files or resources, therefore avoiding using processing power and resources like time, as broadly recited in the claims.
The additional elements that instead the entity is “one or more servers” and the resources are “computing” merely results in apply it, as broadly recited in the result-oriented claim language. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a generic purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically here the claims lack details as to how the claim computer performs the modifications or the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, which is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Further implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate into a practical application similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Further this is nothing more than generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/22/2025 with respect to the “wherein” clause, it is an abstract idea (mental process and human activity) step to systematically by an entity search data stores maintained by an entity to identify workflow content that satisfies at least one channel relevance parameter, and determine by an entity occurrences of different workflow being added, deleted, or updated and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel relevance parameter, as broadly recited in the claim.
The additional result based claiming (result-oriented) elements that this is being performed by software (e.g. a workflow data crawler and a workflow data listener), the information is processed “automatically”, and that the entity is “one or more servers” merely again results in apply it. Specifically here the claims lack details as to how the claim computer performs the modifications or the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, which is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a generic purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate into a practical application similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Further this is nothing more than generally linking it to the field of computers.
Further claims 8 and 15 that recite the above same amendments are rejected on the same grounds as detailed above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite limitations a human operator could reasonably and practically perform in the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project. Specifically a user could generate a combined workflow for projects based on projects they were subscribed to or part of as well as display that information on a display to view that aggregated or combined information and remove information that is no longer needed. Further a human or humans could display on a display three pieces of information simultaneously that include information regarding the aggregated information. The fact that these limitations that could reasonably and practically be performed by a human operator are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to” merely recites software running on a computer to implement the abstract idea and therefore does not result in a practical application. Rather instead this merely recites claims that invokes a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a generic purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate into a practical application similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Further limitations a human operator could reasonably and practically perform in the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to actions where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project that are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to” which is merely software running on a computer to implement the abstract idea merely recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of computers.
As per claim 15, the claims recite limitations a human operator could reasonably and practically perform in the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to rules where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project. Specifically a user could generate a combined workflow for projects based on projects they were subscribed to or part of as well as display that information on a display to view that aggregated or combined information and remove information that is no longer needed. Further a human or humans could display on a display three different pieces of information simultaneously that include information regarding the aggregated information. The fact that these limitations that could reasonably and practically be performed by a human operator are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform” merely recites software running on a computer to implement the abstract idea and therefore does not result in a practical application. Rather instead this merely recites claims that invokes a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a generic purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate into a practical application similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Further limitations a human operator could reasonably and practically perform in the idea of aggregating information for different project workflows together to a user and then providing changes and updates to those various projects according to rules where those updates and changes are provided to other users who are involved in the project that are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform” which is merely software running on a computer to implement the abstract idea merely recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of computers.
Claims 16-20 that recite the non-transitory computer-readable media of 15, result in the same analysis above as found in claim 15.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed in the office action above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2004/0261013) further in view of Anderson (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2009/0063947).
As per claim 1, Wynn et al. teaches A method of managing a workflow, the method comprising: (see abstract, paragraph 0111 and claim 18, Examiner’s note: method of propagating changes across projects).
Automatically subscribing a user to a plurality of workflow channels of a group-based communication system based on at least one channel-relevance parameter matching parameters associated with the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the at least one channel-relevance parameter represents information about the user and user activity of the user within the group-based communication system (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0092, 0100, Examiner’s note: teaches how a user may be automatically added to a project or meeting (see paragraphs 0092 and 0100), Wynn further teaches a user may be on multiple projects (see paragraphs 0069-0070)).
Generating, within the group-based communication system, a workflow ensemble channel for the user comprising a subset of workflow threads from the plurality of workflow channels, the subset of workflow threads for the user based on the at least one channel-relevance parameter, (see paragraph 0049-0050, 0069, 0082, and 0084, Examiner’s note: teaches aggregating and displaying information on projects that the user is involved in to the user).
providing the workflow ensemble channel for display in a group-based communication system interface on a client device of the user; (see paragraphs 0037, 0044, 0088, and 0093-0096, Examiner’s note: teaches an interface where the users can schedule with other users, e.g. group communication).
wherein action requests associated with the subset of workflow threads are automatically presented with the workflow ensemble channel without the user having to navigate to the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3, 12, Examiner’s note: Figures 3 and 12 each show workspaces where at least three panes are shown corresponding to a project simulateantously (Figure 3) or a user’s project (see Figure 12)).
Thereby avoiding an expenditure of computer processing and computer resources of one or more servers associated with the group-based communication system that would result from the user navigating to the plurality of workflow channels (see Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: First examiner notes that the Examiner does not interpret the claim to limit claim scope, as the claim language suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to actually be performed (See MPEP 2111.04). However in the efforts of compact prosecution Figures 3 and 12 show at least three panes corresponding to a project simultaneously so the user does not have to navigate to the previous channels therefore meeting the claim).
wherein the workflow ensemble channels includes at least a first pane that visually depicts a listing of the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each of Figure 3 or 12. Specifically as per the first pane, any of the panes in Figures 3 or 12 could “visually depict a listing of the plurality of workflow channels” as they relate to either a specific project as in Figure 3 or a specific user as in Figure 12, rather than for example all the projects or all the users. It is noted that reference characters 305, 310, 315, 335, 340, 350, 335 345, 325, 1205, 1210, are all interpreted as panes (which is interpreted as part of a section of the whole computer display)).
a second pane that visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3 and 12 and corresponding paragraphs 0052-0053, 0058-0059, 0064-0065, 0066-0068, 0071-0072, 0082-0083, and 0084, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. As per pane 2, pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0059, pane 315 (paragraphs 0064-0065 ), pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0060), pane 320 (paragraph 0066), pane 330 (paragraph 0066-0068), pane 335 (paragraph 0068), pane 340 (see paragraphs 0071-0072), pane 305 (paragraphs 0052-0053), pane 1205 (paragraphs 0082-0083), or pane 1210 (paragraphs 0082, 0084) could be interpreted as “visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels” as this information related to individual projects or user’s projects ).
and a third pane that visually depicts pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow threads, (see paragraphs 0058-0060, 0064-0065, 0082-0084, and Figure 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. As per pane 3, pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0060), pane 315 (paragraphs 0064-0065 )pane 1205 (paragraphs 0082-0083), pane 1210 (paragraphs 0082, 0084,), or panel 330 where a user can see all changes and all scheduled meetings (paragraph 0066-0068), could be interpreted as “pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow thread” as this information related to individual projects or user’s projects ).
wherein each of the first pane, the second pane, and the third pane are simulateantously displayed within the workflow ensemble channel(see Figures 3, 12, Examiner’s note: Figures 3 and 12 each show workspaces where at least three panes are shown corresponding to a project simulateantously (Figure 3) or a user’s project (see Figure 12)).
Wherein the action requests and the pending actions are identified and automatically populated within the workflow ensemble channel by: systematically searching, by a workflow data crawler associated with the one or more servers, data stored in a datastore maintained by the one or more servers to identify workflow content that satisfices at least one channel-relevance parameter; and determining, by a workflow data listener associated by the one or more servers, first occurrences of different workflows being added, deleted, or updated, and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel-relevance parameter; (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0047, 0049, and 0096-0097, Examiner’s note: changes are propagated through the system based on messages from the client to the server where these may be updates (see paragraphs 0041, 0096-0097), and where information provided is stored on a server (see paragraph 0038). Further teaches these changes are propagated across a network based on software, e.g. the claimed workflow data crawler and workflow data listener (see paragraphs 0047 and 0049)).
receiving an action request associated with the user for a workflow thread of the subset of workflow threads; responsive to determining that the action request satisfies at least one action- relevance parameter, providing automatically the action request for display in the workflow ensemble channel; receiving, from the user and via the group-based communication system interface, a user action response to the action request; responsive to the user action response, automatically fulfilling the action request from the display within the workflow ensemble channel and updating a response status for the action request; and providing the response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection).
While Wynn clearly above teaches generating an action request and performing an action in response a selection regarding the action request, Wynn does not expressly teach the common interface display of removing the action request after a response is received or more specifically as recited in the claims of removing the action request.
However, Anderson which is in the art of project sharing and calendar system (see abstract and paragraph 0047) teaches the common interface display of removing the action request after a response is received or more specifically as recited in the claims of removing the action request(see paragraphs 0071, 0073-074, and 0147, Examiner’s note: save and close button saves and closes the information, the information can be used later).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn with the aforementioned teachings from Anderson with the motivation providing a common interface element of removing an unneeded interface element from display after an appropriate selection has been made (see Anderson paragraphs 0071, 0073-074, and 0147), when making a selection and saving the information from the selection is known (see Wynn 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104).
As per claim 2, Wynn et al. teaches
wherein the action request is further provided for display in a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread. (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection).
As per claim 4, Wynn et al. teaches
further comprising: determining a swarming indication based on group-based communication system content; and generating the action request responsive to the swarming indication, wherein the action request comprises an invitation for the user to join a swarm associated with at least one of the plurality of workflow channels (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature).
As per claim 5, Wynn et al. teaches
further comprising: responsive to the user action response, determining a next action request associated with an additional user, wherein the next action request satisfies at an additional action-relevance parameter associated with the additional user; and responsive to determining that the next action request satisfies the additional action-relevance parameter, providing the next action request for display in an additional workflow ensemble channel, the additional workflow ensemble channel having been generated for the additional user, wherein the additional workflow ensemble channel comprises the workflow thread, and wherein the action request defines a link in an action chain associated with the workflow and the next action request defines an additional link in the action chain (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
As per claim 6, Wynn et al. teaches
further comprising: receiving, from the additional user and via the group-based communication system interface, a next action response responsive to the next action request; responsive to the next action response, updating a next response status for the next action request; providing the next response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel for the user; and providing the next response status for display in the additional workflow ensemble channel for the additional user. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-00104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
As per claim 8, Wynn et al. teaches A workflow management system, comprising: (see paragraphs 0109 and 0111, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions in Wynn et al.).
at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor (see paragraphs 0109 and 0111, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions in Wynn et al.).
to perform a method of managing a workflow, the method comprising: (see abstract, paragraph 0111 and claim 18, Examiner’s note: method of propagating changes across projects).
Automatically subscribing a user to a plurality of workflow channels of a group-based communication system based on at least one channel-relevance parameter matching parameters associated with the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the at least one channel-relevance parameter represents information about the user and user activity of the user within the group-based communication system (see paragraphs 006-0070, 0092, 0100, Examiner’s note: teaches how a user may be automatically added to a project or meeting (see paragraphs 0092 and 0100), Wynn further teaches a user may be on multiple projects (see paragraphs 0069-0070)).
Generating, within the group-based communication system, a workflow ensemble channel for the user comprising a subset of workflow threads from the plurality of workflow channels, the subset of workflow threads for the user based on the at least one channel- relevance parameter; (see paragraph 0049-0050, 0069, 0082,and 0084, Examiner’s note: teaches aggregating and displaying information on projects that the user is involved in to the user).
providing the workflow ensemble channel for display in a group-based communication system interface on a client device of the user; (see paragraphs 0037, 0044, 0088, 0093-0096, Examiner’s note: teaches an interface where the users can schedule with other users, e.g. group communication).
wherein action requests associated with the subset of workflow threads are automatically presented with the workflow ensemble channel without the user having to navigate to the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3, 12, Examiner’s note: Figures 3 and 12 each show workspaces where at least three panes are shown corresponding to a project simulateantously (Figure 3) or a user’s project (see Figure 12)).
Thereby avoiding an expenditure of computer processing and computer resources of one or more servers associated with the group-based communication system that would result from the user navigating to the plurality of workflow channels (see Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: First examiner notes that the Examiner does not interpret the claim to limit claim scope, as the claim language suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to actually be performed (See MPEP 2111.04). However in the efforts of compact prosecution Figures 3 and 12 show at least three panes corresponding to a project simultaneously so the user does not have to navigate to the previous channels therefore meeting the claim).
wherein the workflow ensemble channels includes at least a first pane that visually depicts a listing of the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. Specifically as per the first pane, any of the panes in Figures 3 or 12 could “visually depict a listing of the plurality of workflow channels” as they relate to either a specific project as in Figure 3 or a specific user as in Figure 12, rather than for example all the projects or all the users. It is noted that reference characters 305, 310, 315, 335, 340, 350, 335 345, 325, 1205, 1210, are all interpreted as panes (which is interpreted as part of a section of the whole computer display)).
a second pane that visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3 and 12 and corresponding paragraphs 0052-0053, 0058-0059, 0064-0065, 0066-0068, 0071-0072, 0082-0083, and 0084, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. As per pane 2, pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0059, pane 315 (paragraphs 0064-0065 ), pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0060), pane 320 (paragraph 0066), pane 330 (paragraph 0066-0068), pane 335 (paragraph 0068), pane 340 (see paragraphs 0071-0072), pane 305 (paragraphs 0052-0053), pane 1205 (paragraphs 0082-0083), or pane 1210 (paragraphs 0082, 0084) could be interpreted as “visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels” as this information related to individual projects or user’s projects ).
and a third pane that visually depicts pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow threads, (see paragraphs 0058-0060, 0064-0068, 0082-0084, and Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. As per pane 3, pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0060), pane 315 (paragraphs 0064-0065 )pane 1205 (paragraphs 0082-0083), pane 1210 (paragraphs 0082, 0084,), or panel 330 where a user can see all changes and all scheduled meetings (paragraph 0066-0068), could be interpreted as “pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow thread” as this information related to individual projects or user’s projects ).
wherein each of the first pane, the second pane, and the third pane are simulateantously displayed within the workflow ensemble channel(see Figures 3, 12, Examiner’s note: Figures 3 and 12 each show workspaces where at least three panes are shown corresponding to a project simulateantously (Figure 3) or a user’s project (see Figure 12)).
Wherein the action requests and the pending actions are identified and automatically populated within the workflow ensemble channel by: systematically searching, by a workflow data crawler associated with the one or more servers, data stored in a datastore maintained by the one or more servers to identify workflow content that satisfices at least one channel-relevance parameter; and determining, by a workflow data listener associated by the one or more servers, first occurrences of different workflows being added, deleted, or updated, and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel-relevance parameter; (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0047, 0049, and 0096-0097, Examiner’s note: changes are propagated through the system based on messages from the client to the server where these may be updates (see paragraphs 0041, 0096-0097), and where information provided is stored on a server (see paragraph 0038). Further teaches these changes are propagated across a network based on software, e.g. the claimed workflow data crawler and workflow data listener (see paragraphs 0047 and 0049)).
receiving an action request associated with the user for a workflow thread of the subset of workflow threads; responsive to determining that the action request satisfies at least one action-relevance parameter, automatically providing the action request for display in the workflow ensemble channel, receiving, from the user and via the group-based communication system interface, a user action response to the action request; responsive to the user action response, automatically fulfilling the action request from the display within the workflow ensemble channel and updating a response status for the action request; and providing the response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel. (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection).
While Wynn clearly above teaches generating an action request and performing an action in response a selection regarding the action request, Wynn does not expressly teach the common interface display of removing the action request after a response is received or more specifically as recited in the claims of removing the action request.
However, Anderson which is in the art of project sharing and calendar system (see abstract and paragraph 0047) teaches the common interface display of removing the action request after a response is received or more specifically as recited in the claims of removing the action request(see paragraphs 0071, 0073-074, and 0147, Examiner’s note: save and close button saves and closes the information, the information can be used later).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn with the aforementioned teachings from Anderson with the motivation providing a common interface element of removing an unneeded interface element from display after an appropriate selection has been made (see Anderson paragraphs 0071, 0073-074, and 0147), when making a selection and saving the information from the selection is known (see Wynn 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104).
As per claim 9, Wynn et al. teaches
wherein the action request is further provided for display in a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread. (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection).
As per claim 11, Wynn et al. teaches
the method further comprising: determining a swarming indication based on group-based communication system content; and generating the action request responsive to the swarming indication, wherein the action request comprises an invitation for the user to join a swarm associated with at least one of the plurality of workflow channels. (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature).
As per claim 12, Wynn et al. teaches
the method further comprising: responsive to the user action response, determining a next action request associated with an additional user, wherein the next action request satisfies at an additional action-relevance parameter associated with the additional user; and responsive to determining that the next action request satisfies the additional action-relevance parameter, providing the next action request for display in an additional workflow ensemble channel, the additional workflow ensemble channel having been generated for the additional user, wherein the additional workflow ensemble channel comprises the workflow thread, and wherein the action request defines a link in an action chain associated with the workflow and the next action request defines an additional link in the action chain. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
As per claim 13, Wynn et al. teaches
the method further comprising: receiving, from the additional user and via the group-based communication system interface, a next action response responsive to the next action request; responsive to the next action response, updating a next response status for the next action request; providing the next response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel for the user; and providing the next response status for display in the additional workflow ensemble channel for the additional user. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
As per claim 15, Wynn et al. teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor (see paragraphs 0109 and 0111, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions in Wynn et al.).
to perform a method of managing a workflow, the method comprising: (see abstract, paragraph 0111 and claim 18, Examiner’s note: method of propagating changes across projects).
Automatically subscribing a user to a plurality of workflow channels of a group-based communication system based on at least one channel-relevance parameter matching parameters associated with the plurality of workflow channels, wherein the at least one channel-relevance parameter represents information about the user and user activity of the user within the group-based communication system (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0092, 0100, Examiner’s note: teaches how a user may be automatically added to a project or meeting (see paragraphs 0092 and 0100), Wynn further teaches a user may be on multiple projects (see paragraphs 0069-0070)).
Generating, within the group-based communication system, a workflow ensemble channel for a user comprising a subset of workflow threads from the plurality of workflow channels, the subset of workflow threads for the user based on the at least one channel- relevance parameter;(see paragraph 0049-0050, 0069, 0082, and 0084, Examiner’s note: teaches aggregating and displaying information on projects that the user is involved in to the user).
providing the workflow ensemble channel for display in a group-based communication system interface on a client device of the user; (see paragraphs 0037, 0044, 0088, 0093-0096, Examiner’s note: teaches an interface where the users can schedule with other users, e.g. group communication).
wherein action requests associated with the subset of workflow threads are automatically presented with the workflow ensemble channel without the user having to navigate to the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3, 12, Examiner’s note: Figures 3 and 12 each show workspaces where at least three panes are shown corresponding to a project simulateantously (Figure 3) or a user’s project (see Figure 12)).
Thereby avoiding an expenditure of computer processing and computer resources of one or more servers associated with the group-based communication system that would result from the user navigating to the plurality of workflow channels (see Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: First examiner notes that the Examiner does not interpret the claim to limit claim scope, as the claim language suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to actually be performed (See MPEP 2111.04). However in the efforts of compact prosecution Figures 3 and 12 show at least three panes corresponding to a project simultaneously so the user does not have to navigate to the previous channels therefore meeting the claim).
wherein the workflow ensemble channels includes at least a first pane that visually depicts a listing of the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. Specifically as per the first pane, any of the panes in Figures 3 or 12 could “visually depict a listing of the plurality of workflow channels” as they relate to either a specific project as in Figure 3 or a specific user as in Figure 12, rather than for example all the projects or all the users. It is noted that reference characters 305, 310, 315, 335, 340, 350, 335 345, 325, 1205, 1210, are all interpreted as panes (which is interpreted as part of a section of the whole computer display)).
a second pane that visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels, (see Figures 3 and 12 and corresponding paragraphs 0052-0053, 0058-0059, 0064-0065, 0066-0068, 0071-0072, 0082-0083, and 0084, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. As per pane 2, pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0059, pane 315 (paragraphs 0064-0065 ), pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0060), pane 320 (paragraph 0066), pane 330 (paragraph 0066-0068), pane 335 (paragraph 0068), pane 340 (see paragraphs 0071-0072), pane 305 (paragraphs 0052-0053), pane 1205 (paragraphs 0082-0083), or pane 1210 (paragraphs 0082, 0084) could be interpreted as “visually depicts the action requests associated with the plurality of workflow channels” as this information related to individual projects or user’s projects ).
and a third pane that visually depicts pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow threads, (see paragraphs 0058-0060, 0064-0068, 0082-0084, Figures 3 and 12, Examiner’s note: It is further noted that each of the panes are broadly recited and could read on multiple of the corresponding panes in each Figure 3 or 12. As per pane 3, pane 310 (see paragraphs 0058-0060), pane 315 (paragraphs 0064-0065 ), pane 1205 (paragraphs 0082-0083), pane 1210 (paragraphs 0082, 0084,), or pane 330 where a user can see all changes and all scheduled meetings (paragraph 0066-0068), could be interpreted as “pending actions associated with the action requests and a thread history of the subset of workflow thread” as this information related to individual projects or user’s projects ).
wherein each of the first pane, the second pane, and the third pane are simulateantously displayed within the workflow ensemble channel(see Figures 3, 12, Examiner’s note: Figures 3 and 12 each show workspaces where at least three panes are shown corresponding to a project simulateantously (Figure 3) or a user’s project (see Figure 12)).
Wherein the action requests and the pending actions are identified and automatically populated within the workflow ensemble channel by: systematically searching, by a workflow data crawler associated with the one or more servers, data stored in a datastore maintained by the one or more servers to identify workflow content that satisfices at least one channel-relevance parameter; and determining, by a workflow data listener associated by the one or more servers, first occurrences of different workflows being added, deleted, or updated, and second occurrences of relevant activity based at least in part on the at least one channel-relevance parameter; (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0047, 0049, and 0096-0097, Examiner’s note: changes are propagated through the system based on messages from the client to the server where these may be updates (see paragraphs 0041, 0096-0097), and where information provided is stored on a server (see paragraph 0038). Further teaches these changes are propagated across a network based on software, e.g. the claimed workflow data crawler and workflow data listener (see paragraphs 0047 and 0049)).
receiving an action request associated with the user for a workflow thread of the subset of workflow threads; responsive to determining that the action request satisfies at least one action-relevance parameter, automatically providing the action request for display in the workflow ensemble channel, receiving, from the user and via the group-based communication system interface, a user action response to the action request; responsive to the user action response, automatically fulfilling the action request from the display within the workflow ensemble channel and updating a response status for the action request; and providing the response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel. (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection).
While Wynn clearly above teaches generating an action request and performing an action in response a selection regarding the action request, Wynn does not expressly teach the common interface display of removing the action request after a response is received or more specifically as recited in the claims of removing the action request.
However, Anderson which is in the art of project sharing and calendar system (see abstract and paragraph 0047) teaches the common interface display of removing the action request after a response is received or more specifically as recited in the claims of removing the action request(see paragraphs 0071, 0073-074, and 0147, Examiner’s note: save and close button saves and closes the information, the information can be used later).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn with the aforementioned teachings from Anderson with the motivation providing a common interface element of removing an unneeded interface element from display after an appropriate selection has been made (see Anderson paragraphs 0071, 0073-074, and 0147), when making a selection and saving the information from the selection is known (see Wynn 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0102-0104).
As per claim 17, Wynn et al. teaches
the method further comprising: determining a swarming indication based on group-based communication system content; and generating the action request responsive to the swarming indication, wherein the action request comprises an invitation for the user to join a swarm associated with at least one of the plurality of workflow channels. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0100, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature).
As per claim 18, Wynn et al. teaches
the method further comprising: responsive to the user action response, determining a next action request associated with an additional user, wherein the next action request satisfies at an additional action-relevance parameter associated with the additional user; and responsive to determining that the next action request satisfies the additional action-relevance parameter, providing the next action request for display in an additional workflow ensemble channel, the additional workflow ensemble channel having been generated for the additional user, wherein the additional workflow ensemble channel comprises the workflow thread, and wherein the action request defines a link in an action chain associated with the workflow and the next action request defines an additional link in the action chain. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
As per claim 19, Wynn et al. teaches
the method further comprising: receiving, from the additional user and via the group-based communication system interface, a next action response responsive to the next action request; responsive to the next action response, updating a next response status for the next action request; providing the next response status for display in the workflow ensemble channel for the user; and providing the next response status for display in the additional workflow ensemble channel for the additional user. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2004/0261013) further in view of Anderson (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2009/0063947) further in view of Mansour et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0100497).
As per claim 3, Wynn et al. teaches
further comprising: responsive to the user action response, automatically causing the user to be subscribed to a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
Wynn in view of Anderson does not expressly teach the action of a user is unsubscribed from a project.
However, Mansour et al. which is in the art of providing project updates for various projects to particular subscribers where a subscriber is a stakeholder in a project(see abstract, paragraph 0031, and Figure 12) teaches the action of a user is unsubscribed from a project (see paragraphs 0011, 0114-0118, and 0177, Examiner’s note: a subscriber can unsubscribe from one of many projects they are subscribed to).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn in view of Anderson with the aforementioned teachings from Mansour et al with the motivation of providing the very commonly known feature in projects that a user can removed from distribution of information about a project if the user is no longer interested or part of a project for either user preference (e.g. to not be overwhelmed with information not of interest) or authorization (e.g. the user is no longer authorized to know what happens with the project as the user is no longer on the team)(see Mansour et al. paragraphs 0011, 0114-0118, and 0177), when Wynn already teaches the feature that members can be added to different projects based on interest and propagating those changes based on that through the network (see Wynn paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104).
As per claim 10, Wynn et al. teaches
responsive to the user action response, automatically causing the user to be subscribed to a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
Wynn in view of Anderson does not expressly teach the action of a user is unsubscribed from a project.
However, Mansour et al. which is in the art of providing project updates for various projects to particular subscribers where a subscriber is a stakeholder in a project(see abstract, paragraph 0031, and Figure 12) teaches the action of a user is unsubscribed from a project (see paragraphs 0011, 0114-0118, and 0177, Examiner’s note: a subscriber can unsubscribe from one of many projects).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn in view of Anderson with the aforementioned teachings from Mansour et al with the motivation of providing the very commonly known feature in projects that a user can removed from distribution of information about a project if the user is no longer interested or part of a project for either user preference (e.g. to not be overwhelmed with information not of interest) or authorization (e.g. the user is no longer authorized to know what happens with the project as the user is no longer on the team)(see Mansour et al. paragraphs 0011, 0114-0118, and 0177), when Wynn already teaches the feature that members can be added to different projects based on interest and propagating those changes based on that through the network (see Wynn paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104).
As per claim 16, Wynn et al. teaches
further comprising: responsive to the user action response, automatically causing the user to be subscribed to a workflow channel associated with the workflow thread. (see paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104, Examiner’s note: provides a way a user can be added to a project through using a search tool and a drag and drop feature. Further providing information like documents, other users, and scheduled meetings. Further teaches conflicts can be highlighted and potentially resolved (see paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0100). Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0102-0104 teach how these conflicts are resolved including through either user input and or priority and then the changes are propagated through the network).
Wynn in view of Anderson does not expressly teach the action of a user is unsubscribed from a project.
However, Mansour et al. which is in the art of providing project updates for various projects to particular subscribers where a subscriber is a stakeholder in a project(see abstract, paragraph 0031, and Figure 12) teaches the action of a user is unsubscribed from a project (see paragraphs 0011, 0114-0118, and 0177, Examiner’s note: a subscriber can unsubscribe from one of many projects they are subscribed to).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn in view of Anderson with the aforementioned teachings from Mansour et al with the motivation of providing the very commonly known feature in projects that a user can removed from distribution of information about a project if the user is no longer interested or part of a project for either user preference (e.g. to not be overwhelmed with information not of interest) or authorization (e.g. the user is no longer authorized to know what happens with the project as the user is no longer on the team)(see Mansour et al. paragraphs 0011, 0114-0118, and 0177), when Wynn already teaches the feature that members can be added to different projects based on interest and propagating those changes based on that through the network (see Wynn paragraphs 0092-0093, 0096-0100, and 0102-0104).
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2004/0261013) further in view of Anderson (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2009/0063947) further in view of Parks et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0234242).
As per claim 7, Wynn et al. teaches
wherein the action request comprises a request to approve or reject terms. (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0101-104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099, and 0101-0104)). Wynn in view of Anderson does not expressly teach approve or reject deal terms
However, Parks which is in the art of workflows (see paragraphs 0065-0066) teaches approve or reject deal terms (see paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0085, 0155, 0165, 0173, and Figure 3D, Examiner’s note: teaches an interface where different users can approve or reject different information in the workflow where these include data objects which include business terms).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn et al. in view of Anderson with the aforementioned teachings from Parks with the motivation of providing a common element in collaborative project management that a user can approve or reject a specific type of information like business updates or information like terms (e.g. to make a change to a business plan you need to have it approved or if you don’t want to make the change you need to reject it) (see Parks paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0085, 0155, 0165, 0173, and Figure 3D), when Wynn practically suggests as much by teachings a user can make a change in the workflow that is propagated through the network (see Wynn paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0101-104) and that these changes relate to business dealings (see Wynn paragraph 0101) are known.
As per claim 14, Wynn et al. teaches
wherein the action request comprises a request to approve or reject terms. (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0101-104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099, and 0101-0104)). Wynn in view of Anderson does not expressly teach approve or reject deal terms
However, Parks which is in the art of workflows (see paragraphs 0065-0066) teaches approve or reject deal terms (see paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0085, 0155, 0165, 0173, and Figure 3D, Examiner’s note: teaches an interface where different users can approve or reject different information in the workflow where these include data objects which include business terms).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn et al. in view of Anderson with the aforementioned teachings from Parks with the motivation of providing a common element in collaborative project management that a user can approve or reject a specific type of information like business updates or information like terms (e.g. to make a change to a business plan you need to have it approved or if you don’t want to make the change you need to reject it) (see Parks paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0085, 0155, 0165, 0173, and Figure 3D), when Wynn practically suggests as much by teachings a user can make a change in the workflow that is propagated through the network (see Wynn paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0101-104) and that these changes relate to business dealings (see Wynn paragraph 0101) are known.
As per claim 20, Wynn et al. teaches
wherein the action request comprises a request to approve or reject terms. (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0101-104, Examiner’s note: teaches making a change in the network where an effected user is provided a notification and the user can make a selection based on that notification that then makes changes based on that selection (see paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099, and 0101-0104)). Wynn in view of Anderson does not expressly teach approve or reject deal terms
However, Parks which is in the art of workflows (see paragraphs 0065-0066) teaches approve or reject deal terms (see paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0085, 0155, 0165, 0173, and Figure 3D, Examiner’s note: teaches an interface where different users can approve or reject different information in the workflow where these include data objects which include business terms).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wynn et al. in view of Anderson with the aforementioned teachings from Parks with the motivation of providing a common element in collaborative project management that a user can approve or reject a specific type of information like business updates or information like terms (e.g. to make a change to a business plan you need to have it approved or if you don’t want to make the change you need to reject it) (see Parks paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0085, 0155, 0165, 0173, and Figure 3D), when Wynn practically suggests as much by teachings a user can make a change in the workflow that is propagated through the network (see Wynn paragraphs 0069-0070, 0093-0099 and 0101-104) and that these changes relate to business dealings (see Wynn paragraph 0101) are known.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bernstein et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2005/0097536) teaches displaying multiple task flow run instances with execution of a software application (see abstract and Figure 2B)
Sanabria et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2007/0061695) teaches a workflow container that can control multiple workflows on the same page concurrently or separately (see abstract)
Bain et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0236843) teaches a way of sharing a workflow with another organization (see abstract)
Nalsky et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0232492) teaches a system for displaying multiple workflows in a single actionable inbox (see abstract)
Dubey et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0072817) teaches pressing the ok button applies the changes and closes the window (see paragraph 0028)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626