DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on May 8, 2025. This action is made final.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 8, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument with respect to the prior art rejection has been considered but is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s argument with respect to the 101 rejection is not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application by improving the conventional techniques in the technical field of “energy-saving-evaluation supporting devices”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. The claims recite a method for, to paraphrase, displaying a workflow. Displaying data, such as the recited workflows in Applicant’s claim, does not improve the functioning of the computer or other technology. Insomuch as Applicant asserts the “energy-saving-evaluation-supporting devices” are a technical field, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claims are confined to a general-purpose computer (e.g., see Fig. 16). Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that the field of efficient resource distribution is a technical field and the claimed invention improves this field is not persuasive. As a first matter, the claims are confined to a general-purpose computer and do not recite any purported technical field. Furthermore, even if the “energy-saving-evaluation-supporting devices” are recited, the claims do not recite an improvement to those devices. While “resources” are distributed based on the displayed workflows, Applicant’s specification describes the “resources” as people (e.g., see [0021], [0031], [0032]). Moreover, the entire field of resource allocation is not reasonably understood to be a problem arising in technology, as some aspects of resource allocation are problems arising in business or other human activity. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, display a workflow, presumably for comparison purposes, to aid in allocating staff to various tasks.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the previous ground 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-18 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.
As to independent claims 1, 7, and 13, the claims recite, among other things, “first distributing each of a plurality of objects into any one of a plurality of elements at an end of the originally planned workflow by flowing from a start of the originally planned workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end of the originally planned workflow based on conditional branching” and “second distributing each of the plurality of objects into any one of the plurality of objects at an end of the comparative workflow by flowing from a start of the comparative workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end of the comparative workflow based on conditional branching”. The claim further recites “distributing resources…based on the number of the plurality of objects distributed to the element at the end”. However, it is unclear how the distributing of the plurality of objects occurs such that they are distributed into any of a plurality of elements at an end of the workflow/comparative workflow, out of the elements included in the workflow/comparative workflow by flowing from a start of the originally planned workflow/ comparative workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end…based on conditional branching. It is unclear how the plurality of objects are distributed into any one of the plurality of elements at an end out of elements by flowing from a start….to an end of the workflow…based on conditional branching as well as being distributed to the element at the end. In other words, not only is it unclear as to how the plurality of objects are distributed into any of the plurality of elements at an end, the claims are further unclear as the claims recite the objects are both distributed into any one of the plurality of elements at an end and the resources are based on the objects distributed to the element at the end. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted in a manner as best understood by the examiner to mean the elements are distributed in a workflow, flowing from a start to an end of the workflow and a resource is assigned to a particular branch of a workflow based on some count. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 fail to resolve the 112 deficiency of their parents claims and are similarly rejected.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 recite a method displaying a workflow, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claims 7-12 recite a non-transitory computer readable memory performing instructions for displaying a workflow, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture. Claims 13-18 recite an information processing system for displaying a workflow, which is within the statutory class of a machine.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-18, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claims 1, 7, and 13 (claim 1 being representative)
accepting designation of an originally planned workflow including an element conditional branch; first distributing each of a plurality of objects into any one of a plurality of elements at an end of the originally planned workflow by flowing from a start of the originally planned workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end of the originally planned workflow based on conditional branching; first counting a number of the plurality of objects distributed for each of element the plurality of elements at the end out of elements included in the originally planned workflow; second distributing each of the plurality of objects into any one of a plurality of elements at an end of the comparative workflow by flowing from a start of the comparative workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end of the comparative workflow based on conditional branching; second counting a number of the plurality of objects distributed for each of element the plurality of elements at the end out of elements included in the comparative workflow; displaying the number of the plurality of objects distributed to an element at the end, associating with the element at the end, for each of the originally planned workflow and the comparative workflow, by a processor; and distributing resources for each service corresponding to each of the plurality of elements at the end of the originally planned workflow and the comparative workflow based on the number of the plurality of objects distributed to the element at the end.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to process and present data in the manner described in the abstract idea, for instance an administrator can track the flow of people/resources and create a workflow diagram to assess bottlenecks and assign resources where needed. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a processor”, "a non-transitory computer readable recording medium”, “an information processing apparatus”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements as part of performing the abstract idea. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“a processor”, "a non-transitory computer readable recording medium”, “an information processing apparatus”—see Specification Fig. 16, [0097]-[0100] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2, 4 (8, 10) (14, 16) merely recite calculating the difference in the workflows, claims 3, 9, 15 merely recite displaying the number of objects, claims 5-6 (11-12) (17-18) merely recite displaying workflow nodes in different forms, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
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) 1-4, 7-9, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saripalli et al. (USPPN: 2019/0325011; hereinafter Saripalli) in further view of Andritosos (USPPN: 2019/0377818; hereinafter Andritsos) and Abeykoon et al. (USPPN: 2022/0180291; hereinafter Abeykoon).
As to claim 1, Saripalli teaches A workflow display method on a graphical user interface (e.g., see Abstract) comprising:
accepting designation of an originally planned workflow including an element conditional branch (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0011], [0017], [0033]-[0052] wherein one or more workflows is generated wherein each data element can have different actions or transformations (i.e., conditional branches));
first distributing each of a plurality of objects into any one of a plurality of elements at an end of the originally planned workflow by flowing from a start of the originally planned workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end of the originally planned workflow based on conditional branching (See 112 rejection above. e.g., see Fig. 3, [0017], [0024] wherein each workflow is a collection of data elements of a plurality of elements, flowing from a start to an end);
first counting a number of the plurality of objects distributed for each of element the plurality of elements at the end out of elements included in the originally planned workflow (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0028] wherein a number of objects distributed along a workflow are determined);
second distributing each of a plurality of objects into any one of a plurality of elements at an end of the comparative workflow by flowing from a start of the comparative workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end of the comparative workflow based on conditional branching (See 112 rejection above. e.g., see Fig. 3, [0017], [0019], [0024] teaching a plurality of wherein each workflow is a collection of data elements of a plurality of elements, flowing from a start to an end, wherein similarities and differences can be measured between the data elements);
second counting a number of the plurality of objects distributed for each of the plurality of elements at the end out of elements included in the comparative workflow (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0017], [0019], [0024] teaching a plurality of wherein each workflow is a collection of data elements of a plurality of elements); and
displaying the number of the plurality of objects distributed to an element at the end, associating with the element at the end, for each of the originally planned workflow and the comparative workflow, by a processor (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0028] displaying the number of objects distributed along each workflow, wherein multiple workflows are possible).
While Saripalli teaches counting and displaying the number of objects distributed along a workflow, flowing from the start to end of the workflow, wherein similarities and differences between the data elements can be measured, should the recited features upon which the examiner rely not provide sufficient support, in the same field of endeavor of data visualization Andritosos further teaches flowing from a start of the workflow/comparative workflow to at least one of the plurality of elements at the end of the workflow/comparative workflow based on conditional branching (e.g., see Figs. 2, 3, 6, 8-12, [0085], [0086] wherein the journey maps (i.e., workflows) have a starting and ending nodes, wherein new nodes can be added and updated to the journey maps based on different attributes (i.e., conditional branching)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Saripalli in view of Andritosos with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to quickly and easily compare one workflow/journey to another to better identify fact-based insights from the event logs (e.g., see [0097]-[0098] of Andritsos).
Saripalli-Andritsos fail to teach distributing resources for each service corresponding to each of the plurality of elements at the end of the originally planned workflow and the comparative workflow based on the number of the plurality of objects distributed to the element at the end.
However, in the same field of endeavor of workflow assignment, Abeykoon teaches distributing resources for each service corresponding to each of the plurality of elements at the end of the originally planned workflow and the comparative workflow based on the number of the plurality of objects distributed to the element at the end (see 112 rejection above. See also [0030], [0059] wherein a resource is automatically assigned to a workflow based on various parameters). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Saripalli-Andritosos in view of Abeykoon before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to efficiently manage human resources (e.g., see [0002]-[0003] of Abeykoon).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Saripalli-Andritsos further teach first calculating, for each object included in the plurality of objects, a distance between a first symbol string corresponding to a first route on which the object flows from a start to an end of the originally planned workflow and a second symbol string corresponding to a second route on which the object flows from a start to an end of the comparative workflow (e.g., see [0057]-[0060] of Saripalli wherein a score is calculated between each data snapshot so that they are compared against one another. See also Fig. 27 of Andritosos illustrating a comparison between entire journeys (i.e., workflow)); and
second calculating a degree of difference of the originally planned workflow and the comparative workflow based on the distance calculated for each of the objects, wherein the displaying includes displaying the comparative workflow, the degree of difference of which satisfies a predetermined condition (e.g., se [0069]-[0072] of Saripalli wherein a degree of difference is calculated. See also [0188]-[0190] of Andritosos wherein the calculation of closeness (i.e., degree of difference) is of the entire journey (i.e., workflow)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Saripalli in view of Andritosos with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to quickly and easily compare one workflow/journey to another to better identify fact-based insights from the event logs (e.g., see [0097]-[0098] of Andritsos)
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Saripalli-Andritosis further teaches wherein the displaying includes displaying a number of objects distributed to the element at the end associating with the element at the end, for each of the originally planned workflow and the comparative workflow, the degree of difference of which is smallest (e.g., see Fig. 3, of Saripalli displaying the number of objects distributed. See also Fig. 27, [0188]-[0190] of Andritosos teaching calculating and displaying a closeness (i.e., degree of difference) is of the entire journey (i.e., workflow).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Saripalli further teaches wherein the distance is Levenshtein distance (e.g., see [0072] teaching the Levenshtein comparison functions).
As to claims 7-10, the claims are directed to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium implementing the method of claims 1-4 and are similarly rejected.
As to claims 13-16, the claims are directed to the information processing apparatus implementing the method of claims 1-4 and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saripalli, Andritosos, and Abeykoon, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Janssen et al. (USPPN: 2016/0300024; hereinafter Janssen).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Saripalli-Andritosos-Abeykoon fail to teach wherein the displaying includes changing a display form of an element of an edge connecting between elements of node according to a number of object distributed to the element of the edge.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data visualization, Janssen teaches wherein the displaying includes changing a display form of an element of an edge connecting between elements of node according to a number of object distributed to the element of the edge (e.g., see [0020], [0025] wherein workflow nodes are dynamically adjusted by color, shape, and/or size based on their predicted load and maximum capacity).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Saripalli-Andritosos-Abeykoon in view of Janssen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to quickly and easily indicate whether a workflow protocol is in compliance (e.g., see [0021] of Janssen).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Saripalli-Andritosos-Abeykoon fail to teach wherein the displaying includes displaying an element at the end in which the number of object exceeds an upper limit in a display form different from a display form of other elements at the end.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data visualization, Janssen teaches wherein the displaying includes displaying an element at the end in which the number of object exceeds an upper limit in a display form different from a display form of other elements at the end (e.g., see [0020], [0025], [0064] wherein workflow nodes are dynamically adjusted by color, shape, and/or size based on their predicted load and maximum capacity wherein different thresholds can be applied in which a visual indicator is provided).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Saripalli-Andritosos-Abeykoon in view of Janssen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to quickly and easily indicate whether a workflow protocol is in compliance (e.g., see [0021] of Janssen).
As to claims 11-12, the claims are directed to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium implementing the method of claims 5-6 and are similarly rejected.
As to claims 17-18, the claims are directed to the information processing apparatus implementing the method of claims 5-6 and are similarly rejected.
Relevant Art not Cited
As a courtesy, the following prior art documents have been found during the course of examination and deemed relevant to applicant’s disclosure. Applicant is strongly encouraged to review the following references prior to any amendments/remarks:
Zeltyn et al. (USPPN: 2022/0327291)
Dreyer (USPPN: 2021/0118555)
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights