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 . 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination filed on 12/5/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-21 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-10, 19-20 are currently amended.
Claim 4 is cancelled by Applicant.
Claim 21 is newly presented.
Claims 1-3, 5-21 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 1/31/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in light of the amendments. A new rejection under 35 USC 112 is applied in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn in light of the amendments and Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments pages 29-36, filed 12/5/2025, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable subject matter over the prior art” section found below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong One:
Applicant submits on page 12 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“Applicant asserts that the present claims are not directed to a mental process. The amended claims make it clear that the claim itself does not organize commerce or legal relationships. Rather, the claim implements a machine-executed control of access and execution of voice-delivered work instructions on a very specific computing architecture….
“A human cannot complete these tasks nor are they even mental observation. The claims focus on computational signal processing and database querying carried out by a very specific system architecture and storing the same.
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. While the claims as amended provide additional detail to the technical aspects of the method, the claims as a whole still recite, describe, or set forth a method for centrally coordinating the servicing of assets by human operators in the field by interactively communicating workflow procedures, converting verbal language to text, and vice versa. The claims are thus rendered an abstract idea under multiple groupings, including business relations as they pertain to commercial interactions, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B; and following rules or instructions as it pertains to managing interactions between people, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C; each falling within the abstract grouping of Certain methods of Organizing Human activities. As the claims as a whole describe, confirming employee credentials and sending and receiving employee job tasking information still represents commercial or legal interactions and/or managing interactions between people; and when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, receiving verbal requests for workflows sent by employees and identifying workflows which match the requests still represents observation, evaluation, and judgement; each still falling well-within the realm of the abstract idea. In addition to previous assessment by Examiner of Mental Processes, the independent claim as amended introduces the conversion of spoken language to text and the recognition of key verbal triggers and wake words. Despite being performed by a computer, these limitations are also rendered an abstract idea as mental processes, by verbal / auditory observation followed by cognitive evaluation and judgment, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.
Step 2A Prong Two:
Applicant submits on page 15 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“The claims do not just provide for the mere receiving, confirming, and transferring of data,
but instead provide for the following: … server-side algorithms… speech-to-text algorithm… voice-controlled workflow navigation commands… remote, cloud-based databases… data encryption… conversational interface… hands-free access to a workflow… quick, secure access to off-site databases….”
Continued on page 20: “…the method does not make use of a general-purpose computer but instead utilizes a very specific arrangement of components in order to implement the method.
“The presently amended claims teach a specific arrangement of computing devices, user interfaces, and a remote server that houses a number of databases, as well as the remote processor, which executes specific algorithms, using information stored in the plurality of databases to perform the method.”
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. The previously presented additional computer-based elements included “processor”, “application,” “verbal workflow management system”, “first computing device”, “first user interface”, “second user interface”, “second computing device”, “audio device having at least one speaker and one microphone”, “servers”, “network connection”, and “administrative database”. As amended, the claims present “administrative database”, “user privilege database”, and “work instruction database” as additional computer-based elements. The functions of these additional elements include storing user credentials, storing user privileges, and storing workflows, and additionally at most retrieving or communicating these types of data. The original additional elements perform functions such as executing login routines, reformatting data by executing speech-to-text and text-to-speech algorithms, communicating workflow procedure incrementally upon verbal triggers from a user, and monitoring for specific trigger and wake words. These functions can be viewed as little more than receiving, confirming, transferring, reformatting, and communicating data.
Applicant submits on page 17 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“Consistent with the Office's analysis in Example 47, the present claims also take real-time remedial actions, including denying access to various algorithms based on credentials.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges that the claims describe taking real-time remedial actions, including denying access to various algorithms based on credentials. In Example 47, preceding the decision to block potentially malicious network packets, an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) performs analysis of continuous incoming data using machine learning to determine the presence of anomalies in the network traffic. In other words, the traffic is not initially known, tagged, or stored anywhere to easily determine whether it should be allowed through, but must undergo a machine learning analysis to determine whether it is anomalous, which provides a technological improvement over previous malicious traffic blocking technologies. Conversely, Applicant’s method describes that the user attempting to access the algorithms either has the proper credentials or does not, according to server-side stored user privilege data, and is granted access or blocked accordingly. No technological complexity beyond checking credentials against a server-side stored list of users and privileges appears present in the claims. Thus, the claims fall short of the standard for practical application illustrated by Example 47.
Applicant submits on page 18 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“With regard to the improvement of a computer, the claims again provide for secure access
to remotely stored data that is automatically encrypted…. The claims also provide for the improvement of a computer by enabling a user to request, navigate, and provide feedback for workflow data in a hands-free manner.”
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. Hands free technology is well established across multiple environments, such as Garmin’s voice-controlled automobile navigation, smart phone task assistants such as Apple’s Siri, and similar voice assist technology such as Amazon’s Alexa. It remains unclear to Examiner from the claims or specification how Applicant’s method improves upon these technologies. Data encryption as a method of security is also well-established technology. A case where automatic data encryption rose to the level of subject matter eligibility is TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc., involving a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Applicant specification discusses encryption at ¶ [0011]: “The system may provide for encryption for data being transferred from and received by a user’s audio device, computing device, and even from the memory storage device (e.g., server)”. However, neither Applicant claims nor specification appear to rise to the same standard of technological detail with regard to an improvement in remotely storing and accessing encrypted data.
Applicant submits on page 19 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“Consistent with the Office's analysis in Example 42, the present claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing for an improvement to the prior art systems. The present claims recite[s] the following: automatically storing, and encrypting a plurality of workflow data… convert the verbal request for the one or more workflows to text… automatically identifying the one or more workflows that match the verbal request… transferring the one or more workflows stored in the work instructions database to the other application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges the claim functions recited by Applicant above. As stated in Example 42, “The claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users… the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” Applicant’s claims, by contrast, describe transforming data from a single format to a single alternate format, in this case voice to text, and vice versa, as opposed to many different formats to one standard format. Applicant’s claims also do not describe redistributing all the data to all users in the common format, nor transmitting notifications whenever updated information is stored. Thus, the claims fall short of the standard for practical application illustrated by Example 42.
Step 2B:
Applicant submits beginning on page 22:
“…there should be an additional analysis to determine if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept. Although there is no need to reevaluate the overlapping considerations, there should be an analysis of whether the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, routine, or conventional.”
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. See again Examiner response above regarding existing hands-free technologies and data encryptions technologies. Applicant specification ¶ [0011] states “The present teachings may be advantageous by storing most, if not all, of the data in a cloud-based database remote from the site location of a user’s device. Allowing for remote storage may allow for the data to be secure, such as from accidental onsite editing, onsite physical damage, cyber-attacks, unauthorized user(s), and the like”; and ¶ [0012] states: “Users may navigate the system using their speech, mechanical button presses, motions or a combination thereof on a mobile device having or being in communication with an audio device; a motion-sensing wearable such as a glove, hat, shoe or other wearable, a pen; or other device capable of receiving and to digital storage systems and devices.” Technological improvement over the application of these conventional technologies is not clear in the specification or claims. Additionally, the capabilities of: a processor on a remote server storing workflows received by and transmitting workflows to users at remote applications, receiving workflow requests via microphone, identifying workflows matching the requests, and transmitting the workflows with verbal instructions to remote computing devices, are regarded by Examiner as well understood, routine and conventional activity as tested per 2106.05(d). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer)
Applicant submits on page 24:
“In BASCOM, the courts held that the inventive concept may be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional. Specifically, the claims were found patent eligible under Step 2B of the analysis because the claims did not simply recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer but rather provided for a particular technical agreement that improved how the filtering could be performed. The court found that the specified configuration provided for the inventive concept and was not conventional.
Similarly, the present claims provide for a non-conventional configuration of components,
including an ordered combination of server-side algorithms, structured databases, and audio execution routines. Applicant submits that these elements do not constitute a generic computer implementation, but rather a non-conventional and specific architecture that yields an improvement in speech-based workflow execution.”
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. The federal appeals court decision to overturn the district court’s decision to dismiss Bascom relied on distinguishing internet filtering from a long-standing fundamental practice. “BASCOM characterized the recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions invalidating claims under § 101 as focusing on claims that are directed to a longstanding fundamental practice that exists independent of computer technology. BASCOM asserted that its claims are different because filtering Internet content was not longstanding or fundamental at the time of the invention and is not independent of the Internet.” Alternatively stated, the appeals court asserted that the practice of internet filtering was not routine or conventional because of the novelty of the internet at the time of the patent (March 1997). Referring again to Applicant specification ¶ [0012]: “Users may navigate the system using their speech, mechanical button presses, motions or a combination thereof on a mobile device having or being in communication with an audio device; a motion-sensing wearable such as a glove, hat, shoe or other wearable, a pen; or other device capable of receiving and to digital storage systems and devices.” The nature of the specification and claims as amended assume the user/technician understands and is familiar with how to address and perform maintenance workflow procedures presented to them audibly; the technology presented focuses on the verbally triggered workflow sequences, encrypted communication, and cloud-based execution. In contrast to Bascom, a person having ordinary skill in the art of field operator maintenance workflows in January 2022 would be familiar with standard operating procedures for servicing assets, communicating with cloud-based applications, and voice-controlled hands-free devices.
Accordingly, the Examiner submits that the claims still recite, describe or set froth the abstract exception, with the additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract exception into a practical application or providing significantly more. Thus, the claims still remain patent ineligible. The rejection under 35 USC 101 below is updated in light of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites: [..] “wherein the login routine includes the processor accessing saved user privileges which are stored in the user privilege database stored in the one or more servers…” [bolded emphasis added].
Claim 1 is rejected as because there is not a proper antecedent for “the user privilege database”.
Claim 1 is recommended to recite, as an example only: [..] “wherein the login routine includes the processor accessing saved user privileges which are stored in a user privilege database stored in the one or more servers…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-3, 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5-21 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
The claim recites, describes, or sets forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (see MPEP 2106.04(a)) such as: Certain methods of Organizing Human activities (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II) and Mental processes1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III):
-> I. Specifically the claims recite, describe or set forth Certain methods of Organizing Human activities:
a) “receive and automatically confirm administrative credentials and allowing a first user to access [..] wherein the administrative process includes [..] receiving the administrative credentials as entered by the first user having administrative privileges [..] the administrative credentials are associated with the administrative privileges which include allowing the first user to configure the one or more workflows, one or more organizations, one or more curricula, one or more users [..] and one or more roles” (independent Claim 1);
“wherein the administrative process includes [..] accessing saved administrative credentials and saved administrative privileges [..] to confirm the administrative credentials and the administrative privileges of the first user” (independent Claim 1);
b) “receiving [..] a plurality of workflow data [..] by accessing and executing a workflow configuration process, the plurality of workflow data including the one or more workflows and the one or more organizations, the one or more users, the one or more devices, the one or more roles”; “wherein the plurality of workflow data received by [..] the workflow configuration process is configured by the first user”; “wherein the one or more users include a second user; wherein the one or more roles include user privileges”; “wherein the workflow configuration process includes storing the one or more workflows of the plurality of workflow data” (independent Claim 1);
c) “accessing and executing a login routine to receive and automatically confirm user credentials, the user credentials are associated with the user privileges, which include allowing the second user to access another application [..] wherein the login routine includes [..] receiving the user credentials as entered by the second user having the user privileges”; “wherein the login routine includes [..] accessing saved user privileges [..] to confirm the user privileges of the second user” (independent Claim 1);
e) “wherein the one or more workflows include work instructions”; “wherein the request routine is configured so that if the second user does not have user privileges to the one or more workflows, the second user is automatically prevented access to the requested workflow and prevented from initiating a step routine (independent Claim 1);
f) “[..] one or more steps associated with the one or more workflows such that the second user hears the one or more steps as one or more verbal instructions and is able to commence performing one or more actions associated with the one or more steps to complete the one or more workflow”; “wherein the step routine includes [..] receiving a plurality of verbal triggers from
the second user to automatically navigate the second user through the one or more workflows, wherein the plurality of verbal triggers include a plurality of verbal commands spoken by the second user and a [..] wake word and/or phrase”; “wherein the plurality of commands includes a next command, a repeat command, a previous command, a help command, a feedback command, and a quit command”; “wherein when the second user speaks the [..] wake word and/or phrase, [..] begins to listen for a workflow title and/or other verbal triggers in the plurality of verbal triggers, such as the plurality of commands”;
“generate and transmit an electronic notification of assistance needed by the second user to a supervisor of the second user” (dependent Claim 8), “feedback as part of a feedback record” (dependent Claim 9), “confirms the geolocation is an allowed geolocation for the second user” (dependent Claim 10).
Such limitations above set forth or describe business relations, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B, and/or managing interactions between people, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C, which all fall within the abstract grouping of Certain methods of Organizing Human activities.
-> II. Also, the claims recite, describe or set forth Mental Processes, by verbal / auditory observation followed by cognitive evaluation and judgment (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III) in order to subsequently follow rules or instructions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C).
Specifically, mental processes, by verbal / auditory observation followed by cognitive evaluation and judgment (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III) are set forth by:
d) “receive a verbal request for the one or more workflows”, “wherein the one or more workflows are verbally requested by the second user [..] as the verbal request, and “wherein the verbal request is transmitted”; (independent Claim 1) as representative of verbal / auditory observation, as well as “wherein the performance report visually conveys, via color coding, to the one or more users which instances of the steps of the one or more workflows being performed where above, within, or below the mean, the median, or the mode” (dependent Claim 20) as representative of visual observation;
e) “identify the one or more workflows that match the verbal request”; “wherein the executing the request routine includes automatically confirming the second user is approved to access the one or more workflows requested by the second user, the automatically confirming the second user is approved includes automatically verifying the user privileges associated with the one or more workflows match that of the second user (independent Claim 1) each representative of evaluation and judgement;
f) “the second user hears the one or more steps as one or more verbal instructions and is able to commence performing one or more actions associated with the one or more steps” (independent Claim 1) as representative of auditory observation; and
“configuring the one or more workflows of the workflow data includes creating the one or more workflows, editing the one or more workflows, or both” (dependent Claim 2), and “wherein a duration of performance of a step of a work flow is determined [..] as the time elapsed between the timer being started and stopped” (dependent Claim 18) each representative of evaluation and judgement subsequent to the auditory observation.
Moreover, following rules or instructions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C) are set forth here by: “such that the second user hears the one or more steps as one or more verbal instructions and is able to commence performing one or more actions associated with the one or more steps to complete the one or more workflows” (independent Claim 1), “wherein the one or more commands include a next command, repeat command, previous command, help command, feedback command, quit command, or any combination thereof” (dependent Claim 4), “the next command causes” “to request a subsequent work step” “for audible execution” (dependent Claim 5), “request a current work step” “for audible execution” (dependent Claim 6), “request a prior work step” “for audible execution” (dependent Claim 7), “wherein completion of the one or more steps is known by the second user provides one or more audible triggers ending the step and either moving on to a subsequent step or ending the workflow” (dependent Claim 17).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Step 2A Prong Two, independent claim 1 recites the following computer-based additional elements: “processor”, “application,” “verbal workflow management system”, “first computing device”, “first user interface”, “second user interface”, “second computing device”, “audio device having at least one speaker and one microphone”, “servers”, “network connection” , “administrative database”, “user privilege database”, and “work instruction database”. These additional elements merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, the capabilities of the first user interface described as “the workflow data is configured by the first user via the first user interface”, can be viewed as not meaningfully different than requiring the use of software to tailor information as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v).
Further, the capabilities of the processor described as “receiving and automatically storing a plurality of workflow data”, “receiving and automatically confirming user credentials and allowing the second user to access the application”, “receiving a verbal request for one or more workflows”, “automatically identifying the one or more workflows which match the verbal request and transferring to the application of the second computing device” as well as authenticating users, communicating remotely with the first and second user devices can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i).
Further still, the capabilities of the second user interface, second computing device, audio device, speaker, and microphone described as “a second user interface of the second computing device”, “wherein the second computing devices includes, is affixed to, and/or is in communication with an audio device having at least one speaker and one microphone,” and “the audio device audibly executes via the speaker one or more steps associated with the one or more workflows such that the second user hears the one or more steps as one or more verbal instructions and is able to commence performing one or more actions associated with the one or more steps to complete the one or more workflows” also can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i).
According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the technological solution to the technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B) because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Therefore, when reading the above claimed additional computer-based elements in light of the original specification, the Examiner finds that they merely apply said abstract idea. Thus, these additional limitations, considered individually and in combination, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general-purpose computer or use the computer as a tool to perform the above identified abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 (dependent claim) recites: The method of Claim 1, wherein the second computing device is a mobile device and the application is a mobile application stored on the mobile device.
Claim 12 (dependent claim) recites: The method of Claim 11, wherein the mobile application of the mobile device is in communication with the processor via a network.
Claim 13 (dependent claim) recites: The method of Claim 12, wherein the network includes a cellular data network.
Claim 14 (dependent claim) recites: The method of Claim 12, wherein the audio device is separate from and in wireless communication with the mobile device.
Claim 15 (dependent claim) recites: The method of Claim 13, wherein the audio device is in communication with the mobile device via Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi, or other wireless signal.
Claim 18 (dependent claim) recites: The method of Claim 17, wherein a duration of performance of a step of a work flow is determined by the application and/or the processor as the time elapsed between the timer being started and stopped; and wherein the duration is stored as part of a performance record in a performance database….
Claim 19 (dependent claim) recites: The method of Claim 18, wherein the method includes one or more users executing one or more performance queries on a computing device having access to another application of the verbal workflow management system… wherein the processor accesses the performance database… wherein the application transmits the performance query to the processor….
Dependent Claims 11, 12, 14, 15 further recite a mobile device and a mobile application as additional computer-based elements. Dependent Claims 12, 13 further recite a network and cellular data network, respectively, as additional computer-based elements.. Dependent Claims 18, 19 further recite a performance database as an additional computer-based element. Dependent Claim 19 further recites a computing device and another application as additional computer-based elements. Yet this language merely requires the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). As such, the claim requirements amount to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Thus, such a generic recitation of a mobile device, mobile application, network, cellular data network, performance database, a computing device, and another application is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, when tested per Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. For the same reasons articulated per MPEP 2106.05(f) above, the additional elements of Claims 11-19 also do not provide significantly more than the abstract exception itself when tested per Step 2B.
Further, dependent Claims 2-21 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in Claim 1 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of Claim 1 along with their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, Claims 3-9 further narrow the application of the second computing device; Claims 10, 11 further narrow the second computing device; Claims 5-10, 12, 16-19 further narrow the processor; Claims 5-7, 14-16, 21 further narrow the audio device; and Claim 9 further narrows the microphone as additional computer-based elements to capabilities such as actively listening for, audible execution on, generates, transmits, stores, confirms, communicates, starts, stops, and determines various forms of data such as commands, triggers, workflows, workflow steps, geolocations, time elapsed, performance mean, feedback, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform an existing process. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable subject matter over the prior art
Claim 1 is independent and overcomes prior art, with the following being Examiner’s statement of reasons for overcoming the prior art: The closest prior art is Crose US 2015/0281817 A1: Wireless mobile training device and method of training a user utilizing the wireless mobile training device, Saini et al. US 11,720,843 B1: Tasking System, Bisroev et al. US 2015/0288682 A1: Systems and methods for digital workflow and communication, Crose US 2019 / 0267002 A1: Intelligent system for creating and editing work instructions, and Srinivasan et al. 2022/0101842 A1: Systems, methods, and apparatuses for improving performance of executing a workflow operation, as mapped above. Yet, neither of Crose ‘15, nor any other prior art on record teaches either alone or, in combination with adequate rationale, teach the following limitations, particularly emphasizing the administrative credentialing functions, the workflow functions performed at the remote server location separate from the first and second computing devices, and the specific voice listening and command functions executed remotely from the human-adjacent computing devices, as recited in independent claim 1:
a) [..]
wherein the administrative process includes the processor accessing saved administrative credentials and saved administrative privileges which are stored in an administrative database stored in one or more servers accessible by the processor to confirm the administrative credentials and the administrative privileges of the first user;
wherein the processor is located on the one or more servers, the one or more servers being remotely located from the first computing device;
wherein the one or more servers are in communication with the first computing device over a network connection;
[..]
b) the processor receiving, automatically storing, and encrypting a plurality of workflow data by accessing and executing a workflow configuration process, the plurality of workflow data including the one or more workflows, the one or more organizations, the one or more users, and the one or more roles;
wherein the plurality of workflow data received by the processor when executing the workflow configuration process wherein the workflow data is configured by the first user via the first user interface;
[..]
wherein the workflow configuration process includes storing the one or more workflows of the plurality of workflow data in one or more work instruction databases stored in the one or more servers accessible by the processor;
[..]
c) [..]
wherein the login routine includes the processor accessing saved user privileges which are stored in the user privilege database stored in the one or more servers accessible by the processor to confirm the user privileges of the second user;
[..]
wherein the processor is located on the one or more servers, the one or more servers being remotely located from the second computing device;
wherein the one or more servers are in communication with the second computing device over the network connection; and
[..]
d) [..]
wherein the request routine includes the processor receiving the verbal request from the second computing device and then accessing and executing a speech-to-text algorithm stored on the one or more servers to convert the verbal request for the one or more workflows to text form;
[..]
e) the processor continuing to execute the request routine to automatically identify the one or more workflows that match the verbal request in the text form and transfer the one or more workflows stored in the one or more work instruction database to the other application of the second computing device;
wherein the one or more workflows include work instructions stored in the one or more work instruction database stored in the one or more servers and accessible by the processor when executing the request routine;
wherein the executing the request routine includes automatically confirming the second user is approved to access the one or more workflows requested by the second user, the automatically confirming the second user is approved includes automatically verifying the user privileges associated with the one or more workflows match that of the second user;
wherein the request routine is configured so that if the second user does not have user privileges to the one or more workflows, the second user is automatically prevented access to the requested workflow and prevented from initiating a step routine; and
f) [..]
wherein the plurality of verbal triggers include a plurality of verbal commands spoken by the second user and a pre-programmed wake word and/or phrase;
wherein the plurality of commands includes a next command, a repeat command, a previous command, a help command, a feedback command, and a quit command; and
wherein when the second user speaks the pre-programmed wake word and/or phrase, the
verbal workflow management system begins to listen for a workflow title and/or other verbal triggers in the plurality of verbal triggers, such as the plurality of commands.
Accordingly, Independent claim 1 as amended along with dependent claims 2-3, 5-21 overcome prior art.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-21 in the instant application does not apply because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Last but not least, the Examiner reminds Applicant that novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are mostly abstract that do not render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101). Simply said the novel and non-obviousness rationale above do not necessarily render the claims patent eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶ 5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Fuchs et al. WO 2012087900 A2, System and method for mobile workflow processing, teaches wireless workflow protocol for agents with hands-free headsets.
Geisler et al. US 20160092805 A1, System and method for workflow management, teaches a workflow management system with a voice-directed mobile terminal.
Gold et al. US 20190114572 A1, System for analyzing workflow and detecting inactive operators and methods of using the same, teaches a system and method for worker identification and performance applying voice-to-text commands.
Kumar et al. US 20170147290 A1, Workflow development system with ease-of-use features, teaches a graphical user interface enabled workflow design application.
McAdam et al. US 9152138 B2, Common collaboration context between a console operator and a field operator, teaches a method of operating a system with a plurality of field operators with real time location data for the operators.
Mellott US 20160189076 A1, Interleaving surprise activities in workflow, teaches a method for training workers by inserting surprise tasks into existing workflows.
Wellsandt et al., Concept of a Voice-Enabled Digital Assistant for Predictive Maintenance in Manufacturing (October 23, 2020). TESConf 2020 - 9th International Conference on Through-life Engineering Services, Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3718008 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3718008
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
March 4, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 March 6, 2026
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.