DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 11/11/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 11/11/2025) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adderly et al. (US 20150178062).
The reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 03/102023.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Adderly teaches a workflow management system ([0005]: a system for analyzing workflows… compare the metadata from the original workflow, the updated original workflow, and the customized workflow), comprising:
at least one processor (Fig.1: processor 002); and
at least one computer readable storage medium (Fig.1: memory 004)coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor ([0029-0031]), instruct the at least one processor to:
load a workflow comprising a plurality of tasks arranged in a sequence ([0022]: As workflows are developed by vendors or customized in the client environment, metadata generator 210 in workflow editor tool 205 captures metadata documenting steps in the workflow and may organize the metadata into metadata categories such as origin metadata, function metadata, dependency metadata, integration metadata, and other types of metadata. For example, origin metadata 282 may describe who created and/or modified workflow step 2 in an updated original workflow),
automatically modify the workflow to obtain a modified workflow, based on an element configuration of an element at which the modified workflow is to be executed, the element configuration indicating hardware equipment of the element ([0013]: Developers of a computer application may provide original workflows that ship with the computer application. Such workflows may include a number of workflow steps. For example, an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) application may provide original workflows that include a number of business process steps. Individual clients installing the application, however, may have requirements that are not fully met with the original workflows. To meet such requirements, one or more of the original workflows may be modified to create customized workflows for the client. Changing requirements may necessitate multiple modifications to the original workflows over time; [0017]: At 125, one or more of the original shipping workflows may be modified to create customized workflows. Such modifications may be performed at the time the computer application is installed to support initial requirements, and additional modifications may be performed at a later time to support later-identified requirements. The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the modified workflow steps during modification of the workflows at 130; [0021]: A workflow editor tool 205 used in creating and modifying workflows for the computer application contains a metadata generator 210. When a user creates or modifies a workflow, metadata generator 210 associates step-specific metadata with the steps in the workflow. This metadata is then stored in metadata store 235. For example, metadata 240 represents the metadata generated for steps in an original workflow 215, metadata 245 represents the metadata generated for steps in a customized workflow 220, and metadata 250 represents the metadata generated for steps in an updated original workflow 225; [0024]: automatically modify analyzed workflows or workflow steps for use in merged workflow 270), and
cause execution of the modified workflow at the element (Fig.1, [0018]: These updated original workflows ship to the client along with the updated version of the computer application for installation in the client environment, and these updated workflows along with the application updates provide updated functionality. The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the new or modified workflow steps during creation of the updated workflows at 140; [0020]: Based on the analysis results, workflows may be created at 150 that merge the customized functionality with the updated functionality provided by the updated original workflows and the updated version of the computer application. These merged workflows may then be used to take advantage of the application updates while retaining any customized functionality not provided by the updates. The updated version of the computer application may then be installed in the client environment at 155).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 8-13, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adderly et al. in view of Schmidgall et al. (US 10467050).
As to claim 2:
Adderly teaches the modified workflow obtained by automatically modifying the workflow, and cause the execution of the modified workflow at the element in response to user instruction to execute the modified workflow ([0018-0020].
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches visually present the modified workflow obtained by automatically modifying the workflow, and cause the execution of the modified workflow at the element in response to user instruction to execute the visually presented modified workflow (Col.4, lines 35-62 and Col.12, lines 33-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for creating, executing, and monitoring workflows.
As to claim 8:
Adderly teaches in response to user selection of the workflow from a plurality of workflows, present at least one input area for receiving user input of the element where the modified workflow is to be executed, and in response to the user input of the element, retrieve the element configuration of the element to, based on the element configuration, automatically modify the workflow to obtain the modified workflow to be executed at the element ([0017-0021] and [0025-0026]).
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches in response to user selection of the workflow from a plurality of workflows, visually present at least one input area for receiving user input of the element where the modified workflow is to be executed, and in response to the user input of the element, retrieve the element configuration of the element to, based on the element configuration, automatically modify the workflow to obtain the modified workflow to be executed at the element (Col.12, lines 9-48 and Col.13, lines 22-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for creating, executing, and monitoring workflows.
As to claim 9:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches a first input area for receiving an element type of the element, and a second input area for receiving an element name of the element (Col.13, lines 22-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for creating, executing, and monitoring workflows.
As to claim 10:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches the element configuration comprises a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) configuration (Col.13, lines 14-21).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for allowing the common User Interface to service all workflows and properly displaying their relevant information.
As to claim 11:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches visually present a first input area for building a new workflow, visually present a function list of functions concurrently with the first input area, in response to user manipulation of one or more functions from the function list into the first input area, generate one or more tasks corresponding to the one or more functions, and connect the one or more tasks to obtain the new workflow, and store the new workflow (Col.1, lines 49-65 and Col.12, lines 9-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for creating, executing, and monitoring workflows.
As to claim 12:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches visually present a second input area for receiving user input of an element type supported by the new workflow, and include, in the function list, functions supporting the element type received through the second input area (Col.6, lines 18-53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for creating, executing, and monitoring workflows.
As to claim 13:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches at least one of: visually presenting at least one first input area for receiving user input of a new element, wherein the user input of the new element comprises an element type, an element name and an element configuration of the new element, or visually presenting at least one second input area for receiving user input of a new function, wherein the user input of the new function comprises a function name, an element type supported by the new function, and a script to be executed as at least a part of the new function (Abstract, Col.1, lines 49-65, and Col.13, lines 22-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for creating, executing, and monitoring workflows.
As to claim 19
Adderly teaches a computer program product ([0003] Disclosed herein are embodiments of a method and computer program product for analyzing workflows associated with a computer application installed in a client environment. Metadata describing an original workflow and metadata describing a customized workflow are identified. The original workflow and the computer application provide original functionality. The customized workflow is a modified version of the original workflow. The customized workflow and the computer application provide customized functionality), comprising a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium (Fig.1: memory 004) storing a computer program that, when executed by at least one processor (Fig.1: processor 002), instructs the at least one processor to:
in response to user selection of a workflow, present at least one input area for receiving user input of an element for workflow execution, wherein the workflow comprises a first set of tasks followed by a second set of tasks ([0025-0026]: At start 305, a comparison tool retrieves original workflow metadata associated with an original version of the computer application from a metadata store at 310, and retrieves updated original workflow metadata associated with an updated version of the computer application from the metadata store at 315. The comparison tool then compares the retrieved original and updated workflow metadata to determine what new functionality exists in the updated workflow at 320… At 325, the comparison tool retrieves customized workflow metadata associated with the original version of the computer application from a metadata store, and compares the retrieved original and customized metadata to determine what customized functionality exists in the customized workflow at 330. Each step in the customized workflow may then be selected at 335 and evaluated at 340 to determine whether the customized workflow step should be retained, retained and modified, or eliminated to preserve the customized functionality in a merged workflow associated with the updated version of the computer application),
in response to the user input of the element, modify the workflow to obtain a modified workflow to be executed at the element, wherein a number of the first set of tasks in the modified workflow is equal to a number of nodes in the element and is greater than 1 ([0017]: At 125, one or more of the original shipping workflows may be modified to create customized workflows. Such modifications may be performed at the time the computer application is installed to support initial requirements, and additional modifications may be performed at a later time to support later-identified requirements. The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the modified workflow steps during modification of the workflows at 130; [0021]: A workflow editor tool 205 used in creating and modifying workflows for the computer application contains a metadata generator 210. When a user creates or modifies a workflow, metadata generator 210 associates step-specific metadata with the steps in the workflow. This metadata is then stored in metadata store 235. For example, metadata 240 represents the metadata generated for steps in an original workflow 215, metadata 245 represents the metadata generated for steps in a customized workflow 220, and metadata 250 represents the metadata generated for steps in an updated original workflow 225; [0024]: automatically modify analyzed workflows or workflow steps for use in merged workflow 270), and
in response to user instruction to execute the visually presented modified workflow,
cause execution of the first set of tasks at each of the nodes of the element, and then cause execution of the second set of tasks at one or more nodes of the element (Fig.1, [0018]: These updated original workflows ship to the client along with the updated version of the computer application for installation in the client environment, and these updated workflows along with the application updates provide updated functionality. The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the new or modified workflow steps during creation of the updated workflows at 140; [0020]: Based on the analysis results, workflows may be created at 150 that merge the customized functionality with the updated functionality provided by the updated original workflows and the updated version of the computer application. These merged workflows may then be used to take advantage of the application updates while retaining any customized functionality not provided by the updates. The updated version of the computer application may then be installed in the client environment at 155).
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Schmidgall teaches visually present at least one input area for receiving user input of an element for workflow execution and visually present the modified workflow (Col.6, lines 18-53 and Col.13, lines 22-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for creating, executing, and monitoring workflows.
Claims 3-6, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adderly et al. in view of Rowlands et al. (US 20120324074).
As to claim 3:
Adderly teaches the plurality of tasks comprises at least one first task and at least one second task, and the executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, instruct the at least one processor to automatically modify the workflow ([0017], [0021], and [0024]).
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Rowlands teaches automatically modify the workflow by generating at least one replica of the at least one first task based on the element configuration ([0003], [0029-0032], and [0056-0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for managing distribution, management, accessibility, ownership, and synchronization of Workflow Process Templates within and between a plurality of cooperating workflow management systems.
As to claim 4:
Adderly teaches the plurality of tasks comprises at least one first task and at least one second task connected to the at least one first task, and the executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, instruct the at least one processor to automatically modify the workflow ([0017], [0021], and [0024]).
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Rowlands teaches automatically modify the workflow
by generating at least one replica of the at least one first task based on the element configuration, and connecting the at least one replica of the at least one first task to the at least one second task to obtain the modified workflow ([0029-0032], and [0056-0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for managing distribution, management, accessibility, ownership, and synchronization of Workflow Process Templates within and between a plurality of cooperating workflow management systems.
As to claim 5:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Rowlands teaches the element configuration indicates that the element is a group of N nodes, where N is a natural number greater than 1, the plurality of tasks comprises at least one first task and at least one second task connected to the at least one first task, and the execut able instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, instruct the at least one processor to automatically modify the workflow by: generating (N-1) replicas of the at least one first task, and connecting each of the (N-1) replicas of the at least one first task to the at least one second task to obtain the modified workflow ([0029-0032], [0078-0083], and [0087-0090]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for managing distribution, management, accessibility, ownership, and synchronization of Workflow Process Templates within and between a plurality of cooperating workflow management systems.
As to claim 6:
Adderly teaches in the execution of the modified workflow, cause the at least one first task to be executed at each of the N nodes, and cause the at least one second task to be executed at one or more of the N nodes (fig.1, [0018-0020]).
As to claim 14:
Elferich teaches a method of workflow management ([0003]: method…analyzing workflows associated with a computer application …The original workflow and the computer application provide original functionality. The customized workflow is a modified version of the original workflow. The customized workflow and the computer application provide customized functionality), said method performed at least in part by at least one processor (Fig.1: processor 002), said method comprising:
loading a workflow comprising a plurality of tasks arranged in a sequence, wherein the plurality of tasks comprises at least one first task and at least one second task connected to the at least one first task ([0019]: At 145, a computer-based comparison tool provides an automated comparison of the original workflows, the updated original workflows, and the customized workflows to assist in upgrading to the new version of the computer application in the client environment. The comparison tool compares and contrasts the metadata generated by the workflow editor tool to generate a detailed analysis representing the customized functionality, and also how that customized functionality may be merged with the updated functionality available in the new version of the computer application. Those responsible for the application upgrade may then use the analysis results generated by the comparison tool, along with semantic interpretation of the client's customization and knowledge of the low-level changes present in the new version of the computer application to provide a faster, more efficient, and less resource-intensive upgrade process; [0022]: As workflows are developed by vendors or customized in the client environment, metadata generator 210 in workflow editor tool 205 captures metadata documenting steps in the workflow and may organize the metadata into metadata categories such as origin metadata, function metadata, dependency metadata, integration metadata, and other types of metadata. For example, origin metadata 282 may describe who created and/or modified workflow step 2 in an updated original workflow; [0026]: At 325, the comparison tool retrieves customized workflow metadata associated with the original version of the computer application from a metadata store, and compares the retrieved original and customized metadata to determine what customized functionality exists in the customized workflow at 330. Each step in the customized workflow may then be selected at 335 and evaluated at 340 to determine whether the customized workflow step should be retained, retained and modified, or eliminated to preserve the customized functionality in a merged workflow associated with the updated version of the computer application);
for a group of nodes, obtain a modified workflow ([0017]: At 125, one or more of the original shipping workflows may be modified to create customized workflows. Such modifications may be performed at the time the computer application is installed to support initial requirements, and additional modifications may be performed at a later time to support later-identified requirements. The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the modified workflow steps during modification of the workflows at 130; [0021]: A workflow editor tool 205 used in creating and modifying workflows for the computer application contains a metadata generator 210. When a user creates or modifies a workflow, metadata generator 210 associates step-specific metadata with the steps in the workflow. This metadata is then stored in metadata store 235. For example, metadata 240 represents the metadata generated for steps in an original workflow 215, metadata 245 represents the metadata generated for steps in a customized workflow 220, and metadata 250 represents the metadata generated for steps in an updated original workflow 225; [0024]: automatically modify analyzed workflows or workflow steps for use in merged workflow 270); and
causing execution of the modified workflow, wherein the at least one first task is executed at each node in the group of nodes, and the at least one second task is executed at one or more nodes in the group of nodes (Fig.1, [0018]: These updated original workflows ship to the client along with the updated version of the computer application for installation in the client environment, and these updated workflows along with the application updates provide updated functionality. The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the new or modified workflow steps during creation of the updated workflows at 140; [0020]: Based on the analysis results, workflows may be created at 150 that merge the customized functionality with the updated functionality provided by the updated original workflows and the updated version of the computer application. These merged workflows may then be used to take advantage of the application updates while retaining any customized functionality not provided by the updates. The updated version of the computer application may then be installed in the client environment at 155).
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Rowlands teaches for a group of nodes, generating at least one replica of the at least one first task, and connecting the at least one replica of the at least one first task to the at least one second task to obtain a modified workflow ([0003]: importing a replica workflow process definition, corresponding to the master workflow process definition, to a second workflow management system. …modifying the master workflow process definition to produce an updated master workflow process definition…sending an updated replica workflow process definition, corresponding to the updated master workflow process definition, to the second workflow management system; [0029-0032], [0037-0040], and [0087-0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for managing distribution, management, accessibility, ownership, and synchronization of Workflow Process Templates within and between a plurality of cooperating workflow management systems.
As to claim 15:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Rowlands teaches in said generating the at least one replica of the at least one first task, a number of replicas of the at least one first task being generated is based on a number of nodes in the group of nodes ([0029-0032], and [0056-0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for managing distribution, management, accessibility, ownership, and synchronization of Workflow Process Templates within and between a plurality of cooperating workflow management systems.
As to claim 16:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Rowlands teaches the group of nodes comprises N nodes, where N is a natural number greater than 1, and in said generating the at least one replica of the at least one first task, (N-1) of replicas of the at least one first task are generated ([0029-0032], and [0079-0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for managing distribution, management, accessibility, ownership, and synchronization of Workflow Process Templates within and between a plurality of cooperating workflow management systems.
As to claim 18:
Adderly does not explicitly teach, Rowlands teaches visually presenting the modified workflow obtained by said generating and said connecting the at least one replica of the at least one first task to the at least one second task, wherein said causing the execution of the modified workflow is performed in response to user instruction to execute the visually presented modified workflow ([0001], [0012-0013], and [0019-0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adderly with Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for managing distribution, management, accessibility, ownership, and synchronization of Workflow Process Templates within and between a plurality of cooperating workflow management systems.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adderly et al. in view of Rowlands et al. and further in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20060136490).
As to claim 7:
The combination of Adderly and Rowlands each of the N nodes is a bare metal ([0070], [0099], and [0145]), the at least one first task comprises an operating system (OS) installation to install an OS at each of the bare metals, and the at least one second task comprises a cluster installation to configure the N nodes, after the OS installation, into a cluster ([0070], [0099], and [0145]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aggarwal with Adderly as modified by Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for finding and re-using existing workflows and workflow templates according to degree of matching common steps, quickest implementation, highest available, or other criteria.
As to claim 17:
The combination of Adderly and Rowlands does not explicitly teach, Aggarwal teaches the at least one first task comprises an operating system (OS) installation to install an OS at each node in the group of nodes, and the at least one second task comprises a cluster installation to configure the group of nodes, after the OS installation, into a cluster ([0070], [0099], and [0145]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aggarwal with Adderly as modified by Rowlands because it would have provided the enhanced capability for finding and re-using existing workflows and workflow templates according to degree of matching common steps, quickest implementation, highest available, or other criteria.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adderly et al. in view of Schmidgall et al. (US 10467050) and further in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20060136490).
As to claim 20:
The combination of Adderly and Schmidgall does not explicitly teach, Aggarwal teaches the first set of tasks comprises an operating system (OS) installation to install an OS at each of the nodes of the element, and the second set of tasks comprises a cluster installation to configure the nodes of the element, after the OS installation, into a cluster ([0070], [0099], and [0145]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aggarwal with Adderly as modified by Schmidgall because it would have provided the enhanced capability for finding and re-using existing workflows and workflow templates according to degree of matching common steps, quickest implementation, highest available, or other criteria.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Adderly does not teach “automatically modify the workflow to obtain a modified workflow, based on an element configuration of an element at which the modified workflow is to be executed, the element configuration indicating hardware equipment of the element”.
In response, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Adderly teaches “automatically modify the workflow to obtain a modified workflow, based on an element configuration of an element at which the modified workflow is to be executed, the element configuration indicating hardware equipment of the element” ([0013]: Developers of a computer application may provide original workflows that ship with the computer application. Such workflows may include a number of workflow steps. For example, an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) application may provide original workflows that include a number of business process steps. Individual clients installing the application, however, may have requirements that are not fully met with the original workflows. To meet such requirements, one or more of the original workflows may be modified to create customized workflows for the client. Changing requirements may necessitate multiple modifications to the original workflows over time; [0017]: At 125, one or more of the original shipping workflows may be modified to create customized workflows. Such modifications may be performed at the time the computer application is installed to support initial requirements, and additional modifications may be performed at a later time to support later-identified requirements. The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the modified workflow steps during modification of the workflows at 130; [0021]: A workflow editor tool 205 used in creating and modifying workflows for the computer application contains a metadata generator 210. When a user creates or modifies a workflow, metadata generator 210 associates step-specific metadata with the steps in the workflow. This metadata is then stored in metadata store 235. For example, metadata 240 represents the metadata generated for steps in an original workflow 215, metadata 245 represents the metadata generated for steps in a customized workflow 220, and metadata 250 represents the metadata generated for steps in an updated original workflow 225; [0024]: automatically modify analyzed workflows or workflow steps for use in merged workflow 270).
Applicant argues that Rowlands does not teach “automatically modify the workflow by generating at least one replica of the at least one first task based on the element configuration”.
In response, under broadest reasonable interpretation Rowlands’s teaching “maintaining a master workflow process definition in a first workflow management system...publishing the master workflow process definition to an object directory services server...importing a replica workflow process definition, corresponding to the master workflow process definition, to a second workflow management system... modifying the master workflow process definition to produce an updated master workflow process definition...sending an updated replica workflow process definition, corresponding to the updated master workflow process definition, to the second workflow management system” [0003] reads-on the claimed “automatically modify the workflow by generating at least one replica of the at least one first task based on the element configuration”.
Applicant argues that Rowlands does not teach “for a group of nodes, generating at least one replica of the at least one first task, and connecting the at least one replica of the at least one first task to the at least one second task to obtain a modified workflow”.
In response, under broadest reasonable interpretation Rowlands’s teaching “maintaining a master workflow process definition in a first workflow management system...publishing the master workflow process definition to an object directory services server...importing a replica workflow process definition, corresponding to the master workflow process definition, to a second workflow management system... modifying the master workflow process definition to produce an updated master workflow process definition...sending an updated replica workflow process definition, corresponding to the updated master workflow process definition, to the second workflow management system” [0003] reads-on the limitations as claimed.
Applicant argues that Adderly does not teach “in response to the user input of the element, modify the workflow to obtain a modified workflow to be executed at the element, wherein a number of the first set of tasks in the modified workflow is equal to a number of nodes in the element and is greater than 1”.
In response, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Adderly teaches “in response to the user input of the element, modify the workflow to obtain a modified workflow to be executed at the element, wherein a number of the first set of tasks in the modified workflow is equal to a number of nodes in the element and is greater than 1” ([0017]: The workflow editor tool generates metadata describing the modified workflow steps during modification of the workflows at 130; [0021]: A workflow editor tool 205 used in creating and modifying workflows for the computer application contains a metadata generator 210. When a user creates or modifies a workflow, metadata generator 210 associates step-specific metadata with the steps in the workflow. This metadata is then stored in metadata store 235. For example, metadata 240 represents the metadata generated for steps in an original workflow 215, metadata 245 represents the metadata generated for steps in a customized workflow 220, and metadata 250 represents the metadata generated for steps in an updated original workflow 225).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199