Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/04/25 has been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 1, 11, 20, the claims recite contradictory language that renders the claims indefinite. The claim recites that when it is determined that the CR is a high priority request, it is determined whether or not the CR meets one or more conditions with respect to the operations level, but the claims also recite that if it is determined that the conditions for the operations level are met, the CR is approved “without determining whether the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to …..the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level”. The claim recites determining if the conditions for the operations level are met, but also recites that if they are met, then the approval is done without determining if the CR meets the conditions for the operations level. This is contradictory language that renders the claim indefinite. Does the applicant intend to recite that the “approved without” language is supposed to be reciting the security level, not the operations level that has already been determined? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-8, 10-18, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer readable medium; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of automatically approving a change request within an organization.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 11, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
creating a change request (CR) based on a received request to create the CR;
defining a plurality of conditions associated with the CR, wherein the plurality of conditions are independently defined for each of an operations level, a domain level, and a security level
determining whether the CR is high priority based on an identifier included with the CR indicating whether the CR is high priority;
based on determining that the CR is high priority—
determining whether the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level within the organization, and
based on determining that the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level within the organization, automatically approving the CR without determining whether the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the domain level and the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level:
based on determining that the CR is not high priority, automatically approving the CR based on a determination that the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level, the one or more conditions with respect to the domain level, and the one or more conditions with respect to the security level: and
based on a task type of the CR being a remote method of procedure, not automatically approving the CR and delegating the CR for manual review
The above limitations are reciting a process by which an organization processes a change request using a set of rules. The claimed determining whether or not to approve a change request is something that can be done by people, as is evidenced by the fact that the method claims to not recite any technology or devices as being a part of the claim scope. Human beings can perform the claimed steps of approving a change request by using a paper request and can perform the recited steps to determine if the request is to be approved, and under what circumstances a request is to be approved. Obtaining approval for something within an organization such as a change to the organizational structure or change to infrastructure is known to be performed by people, as the specification admits in paragraph 002 where it is disclosed that change requests are known to be manually processed by an organization. Approving change requests for an organization, such as changes to government or changes to the operations of a large company is reciting a commercial practice that is undertaken all the time within different organizations. The claimed steps also are reciting a set of rules or instructions that are to be followed for approving a change request when it is received, and for that reason the claimed invention is also considered to be managing interactions between people (the requestor of the change and the people evaluating the change request), which also represents a certain method of organizing human activities. For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities abstract idea that is the act of approving a change request within an organization based on a set of rules.
For claim 1, there are no additional elements recited. All that is recited are the steps to the method that define the approval process which is the abstract idea. There are no devices or any kind of technology that is recited in conjunction with the judicial exception so there is nothing to consider at the 2nd prong and at step 2B of the eligibility analysis. The only elements claimed are the abstract idea itself. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 11, 20, the additional elements are the claimed memory storage with executable instructions and at least one processor that is configured to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea (claim 11), and a non-transitory computer readable medium that comprises computer instructions to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea.
For claims 11, 20, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (apparatus) with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory (CRM), to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) 11, 20, does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea, as was addressed above for the 2nd prong. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not amount to reciting significantly more at step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claims 2-8, 10, the claims are reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. The dependent claims simply recite more about how the approval process works and under what circumstances a change request is approved. The claims recite the sending of the approved change request to an approval board, that can be a board made up of employees of an organization or can be a board of directors that has final approval on a change request. Executing the change request is also part of the abstract idea. All that has been claimed is more about the abstract idea. No additional elements have been claimed for consideration at the 2nd prong and step 2B. For the method claims 1-8, 10, there are no additional elements claimed at all. The only elements recited are those that define the abstract idea.
For claims 12-18, the claims are reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 11. The dependent claims simply recite more about how the approval process works and under what circumstances a change request is approved. The claims recite the sending of the approved change request to an approval board, that can be a board made up of employees of an organization or can be a board of directors that has final approval on a change request. Executing the change request is also part of the abstract idea. All that has been claimed is more about the abstract idea. The additional elements of the claim are the memory storage and the at least one processor that has already been addressed for claim 11. The dependent claims 12-18 do not introduce any further additional elements for consideration beyond those recited in claim 11 and that have already been addressed. The additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (apparatus) with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), as was stated for claim 11.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues on page 11 that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite conditions that are separately considered for a domain level, security level, and an operations level, and because the claims recite how a high priority change request is being processed. This is not persuasive because what has been argued is the abstract idea itself. The features argued by the applicant are part of the abstract idea and do not provide for integration into a practical application. The claims must recite sufficient additional elements to provide for integration into a practical application whereas the argument is based solely on the abstract idea. Even if the claims recite an auto-approval process that is based on independent conditions for plural levels (domain, security, operations) and results in a flexible and customizable approval process, any alleged innovation lies in the abstract idea itself and not in an application of the abstract idea. Also, nothing that is claimed relates to customization of an approval process because there are no elements that define how the process can be changed or customized. The same is noted for the manner by which a high priority change request is processed, that is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that provide for integration into a practical application as has been argued. The method claims do not even recite any additional elements so they cannot be integrated into a practical application without additional elements being claimed. All that has been argued is the abstract idea itself. The argument is not persuasive for this reason.
With respect to the prior art rejection under 35 USC 103, in view of the amendment to the claims the rejection has been withdrawn. The prior art to Vasishth teaches a system and method for the creation of a change request where the change request is analyzed in view of different policies (conditions) that relate to an organization to determine if the change request is to be automatically approved or not, see paragraphs 059, 063. When the change request is not an emergency it is disclosed that the request is analyzed and compared to numerous organization policies that need to be complied with to approve the request, see paragraphs 062, 063. This satisfies the claimed elements reciting what happens when the request is not a high priority request. The change request of Vasishth is disclosed as including an indicator of whether or not the request is high priority, see paragraph 060. Disclosed is that if the request is high priority, it will be handled in an expedited fashion. However, the cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed invention in total that includes (as best understood by the examiner due to the 112(b) issue with the claims):
based on determining that the CR is high priority—
determining whether the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level within the organization, and
based on determining that the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level within the organization, automatically approving the CR without determining whether the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the domain level and the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level:
and based on a task type of the CR being a remote method of procedure, not automatically approving the CR and delegating the CR for manual review
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626