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 Claims
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/25/2025.
Claims 1, 12-14 and 20 have been amended. Claims 8, 9 and 19 have been deleted. Claims 1-7, 10-18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “ …the present claims are patent eligible at least at Step 2A Prong Two because the claims recite additional elements, and those elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the claim improves the technical field of automated workflow creation in cloud platforms.” (pg. 9-10)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-2 and 13 recite the additional elements of a user interfaces. Claims 3 and 14 recites the additional elements of a cloud platform and user interfaces. Claims 4-5, 15-16 recite a process automation monitor and control system. Claim 12 recites the additional elements of at least one processor, a memory, a user interface. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a processor and a user interface. These are generic computer components recited at high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (Spec ¶0113, general purpose computer)
For instance the step of providing an interface to obtain release information involves data gathering functionality. The step of detecting an indication for receiving a message and receiving from the end user a request for a new version of the workflow is data input functionality ( sending/receiving). The step of monitoring a workflow and generating metrics is data gathering and analysis. The step of evaluating by one or more rules or an ML model a plurality of metrics of a workflow to approve or deny involves data analysis. The step of in response to approving the automated workflow causing one or more actions comprising releasing the workflow by generating an executable workflow (data manipulation) and publishing the workflow (sending workflow to the cloud) is considered an output of the analysis or simply storing the automated workflow. The steps of generating a second user interface configured to receive a file is displaying an interface and upload functionality which is commonly used functionality. The second user interface including an approval element is descriptive language and releasing the new version of the automated workflow is sending or storing the workflow. Examiner notes that the claimed limitations should be positively recited (e.g. selecting the release user interface element; receiving a message to initiate a review and monitoring an automated workflow)
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claims are not reflective of an improvement in a technology or a technical field. There is no indication in the Specification or the claims that demonstrate an improvement in a technical field in particular. The claims are reflective of an improved business process for releasing workflows.
Applicant argues, “ The human mind cannot practically perform such
operations, nor is the human mind equipped to do so, pursuant to MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(1Il)(A).” (pgs. 10-11)
Based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor, memory and crm) are performing generic computer functions such as selecting a release interface element on an interface; receiving a message to initiate a review; monitoring workflow and accessing/generating metrics; evaluating based on rules or ML model; approving and releasing automated workflow and requesting a new version of a workflow. These are mental steps of how a person would perform review and release of an automated workflow. The generic computer components are merely automating the limitations.
Applicant argues, “Because the claims improve the technical field of automated workflow creation in cloud platforms, the additional elements, when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, pursuant to MPEP §§2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a). (pgs. 11-12)
As previously stated there is no indication in the Specification or claims of an improvement in a technology or a technical field. Further, Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 12-13, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-7, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
in response to the message, monitoring of the automated workflow by at least accessing and/or generating a plurality of metrics associated with the automated workflow; and
in response to the monitoring, evaluating, by one or more rules a machine learning model, the plurality of metrics to provide an indication whether to approve or deny, without end user intervention, the automated workflow
in response to the indication approving the automated workflow, causing, based on the plurality of metrics, one or more actions with respect to the automated workflow, wherein the one or more actions comprise releasing the automated workflow by generating an executable version of the automated workflow and publishing the executable version of the automated workflow …
receiving, from the end user, a request for a new version of the automated workflow;
releasing the new version of the automated workflow upon selection of the approval…
The limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, monitoring an automatic workflow, evaluating by one or more rules or a machine learning model a plurality of metrics to provide indication to approve or deny involves collecting and analyzing information. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claims 12 and 20 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract idea. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to displaying a second interface displaying an interface element for approval or denial, Claim 3 is directed to a third interface displayed after selection , Claim 4 is directed to developing workflow, Claim 5 is directed to storing data, Claim 6 is directed metrics, Claim 7 is directed to storing data, Claim 10 is directed to providing user interface elements and Claim 11 is directed to a workflow with a series of steps. Claims 13-18 substantially recite the subject matter of claims 2-11 and encompass the same abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-2 and 13 recite the additional elements of a user interfaces. Claims 3 and 14 recites the additional elements of a cloud platform and user interfaces. Claims 4-5, 15-16 recite a process automation monitor and control system. Claim 12 recites the additional elements of at least one processor, a memory, a user interface. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a processor and a user interface. These are generic computer components recited at high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (Spec ¶0113, general purpose computer)
For instance the step of providing an interface to obtain release information involves data gathering functionality. The step of detecting an indication for receiving a message and receiving from the end user a request for a new version of the workflow is data input functionality ( sending/receiving). The step of monitoring a workflow and generating metrics is data gathering and analysis. The step of evaluating by one or more rules or an ML model a plurality of metrics of a workflow to approve or deny involves data analysis. The step of in response to approving the automated workflow causing one or more actions comprising releasing the workflow by generating an executable workflow (data manipulation) and publishing the workflow (sending workflow to the cloud) is considered an output of the analysis or simply storing the automated workflow. The steps of generating a second user interface configured to receive a file is displaying an interface and upload functionality which is commonly used functionality. The second user interface including an approval element is descriptive language and releasing the new version of the automated workflow is sending or storing the workflow. Examiner notes that the claimed limitations should be positively recited (e.g. selecting the release user interface element; receiving a message to initiate a review and monitoring an automated workflow)
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a crm, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-7, 10-18 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Kurian et al. (US 2016/0371622) discloses workflow extensibility, such that changes to existing workflows and/or addition of new workflows result in automatic adaption to all downstream and upstream workflows that are affected by the change or addition.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683