DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/182,226 filed on 03/20/2023. Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-13 and 21-23 have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 Amendment
In the response filed January 29, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13, and canceled claims 14-20. New claims 21-27 were presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claims 10, 12, and 13 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant submits “In this regard, assignee's representative appreciates Garcia-Guerra's indication during the interview that the proposed amendments may overcome the rejections by reciting technical features comprising a technical change to a graphical user interface in regards to, e.g., enhancing a user's experience of a workflow and/or improving the workflow; however, no agreement was reached regarding allowance without further search and consideration. In furtherance of the telephonic interview, favorable reconsideration of the subject patent application is respectfully requested in view of the comments and amendments herein.”” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, page 11]
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the Applicant’s argument appears to misinterpret the summary of the interview. Based on the actual interview summary provided, it is clear that the Examiner maintained her position on the §101 rejection. While the applicant’s argument highlights an appreciation for the Examiner’s indication that the proposed amendment could potentially overcome the rejections, the interview summary does not show any agreement by the Examiner regarding allowance of the application. In fact, the Examiner specifically noted that terms like “enhancing” or “improving are insufficient to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner explained that the claim language must articulate a technical solution and not merely a result. As the Interview Summary shows “The participants discussed the claim rejection under 35 USC 101 and approaches to respond to the rejection under 35 USC 101. The Examiner maintained her position and the merit of the 101 rejection. Examiner indicated that taken individually or as an ordered combination the claim elements amount to no more than applying abstract ideas using generic technology, which fails to meet the requirements for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. Examiner noted that with respect to the amended "determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the subscriber has selected, via the group of user interfaces, a group of help resources more than a defined percentage of respective numbers of times that other subscribers of the group of subscribers of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service have selected the group of help resources and in response to the subscriber being determined to have selected, via the group of user interfaces, the group of help resources more than the defined percentage of the respective numbers of times that the other subscribers have selected the group of help resources, enhancing, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service within a user interface (UI) of the group of user interfaces, a presentation of at least one of the support resource for the workflow, the support detail for the workflow, or the guided assistance for the workflow," that while the claim recites "enhancing," words like enhancing or improving are not sufficient to make a claim eligible. The claim language must explain how the alleged benefit is achieved in a technical way. Examiner indicted that "enhancing" a presentation states a result, and it does not specify any technical change to the GUI architecture, the rendering process, data structures, display logic, or computer performance. The participants discussed the possibility of further amending the claims to include additional technical features supported by the Specification in pursuit of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner awaits response by Applicant and said she would consider any proposed amendments and arguments after a response was formally filed. However, no agreements were reached during the interview.”
Applicant submits “II. Rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested in view of the corresponding Examiner interview and amendments made herein. III. Rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested in view of the corresponding Examiner interview and amendments made herein.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, page 12]
In response to Applicant’s request for withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101, it is noted that the remarks do not address the issues raised in the rejection. The claims is still directed to an abstract idea. The amendments made do not demonstrate any technological improvement or inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. Therefore, the §101 rejection is maintained. For the reasons above along with the reasons set forth in the updated §101 rejection set forth below, Applicant’s amendments and arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Applicant submits “In this regard, Lekas et al. and Kim et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest at least based on a subscriber identification (ID) representing a subscriber of a group of subscribers of a cloud-based workflow monitoring service that utilizes communication links between an executable component of the executable components of the system and respective devices of the system corresponding to a group of user interfaces, authenticating use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the subscriber; in response to the authenticating of the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, tracking, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data representing a workflow comprising respective steps being performed by the subscriber via the group of user interfaces, the workflow; determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the respective steps of the workflow correspond to an occurrence of a defined outcome of interest
comprising an error that has occurred; and in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, pages 12-13]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Lekas et al. and Kim et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest at least based on a subscriber identification (ID) representing a subscriber of a group of subscribers of a cloud-based workflow monitoring service that utilizes communication links between an executable component of the executable components of the system and respective devices of the system corresponding to a group of user interfaces, authenticating use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the subscriber; in response to the authenticating of the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, tracking, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data representing a workflow comprising respective steps being performed by the subscriber via the group of user interfaces, the workflow; determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the respective steps of the workflow correspond to an occurrence of a defined outcome of interest comprising an error that has occurred; and in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Moreover, the Examiner notes the limitations being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 01/29/2026, which have been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Applicant submits “Lekas et al. discloses privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy. (See Abstract). Kim et al. discloses analyzing computer usage data of a user to identify an underlying task being performed by the user. (See Abstract). In this regard, monitoring user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy, and analyzing computer usage data of a user to identify an underlying task being performed by the user cannot be said to disclose or suggest at least in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, page 13]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Lekas and Kim fail “to disclose or suggest at least in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 01/29/2026, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Applicant submits “Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Lekas et al., in view of Kim et al., and further in view of Maccanti et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0322017 A1). This rejection is traversed and should be withdrawn for at least the following reason: Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Maccanti et al. fail to teach or suggest each and every element recited in claim 3. In this regard, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Maccanti et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1. Instead, as described above, Lekas et al. discloses privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy; and Kim et al. discloses analyzing computer usage data of a user to identify an underlying task being performed by the user. Further, Maccanti et al. discloses a data storage service that stores data for database tables in multiple replicated partitions on respective storage nodes. (See Abstract). As claim 3 depends from claim 1, claim 3 is allowable for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Maccanti et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 3, and reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, page 14]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Maccanti et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 01/29/2026, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Moreover, the remarks do not address the specific deficiencies in the applied reference and the actual teachings relevant to dependent claim 3. The argument broadly states that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Maccanti et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 3,” but does not substantiate these elements with a detailed analysis of how the references fail to teach the features of claim 3. Without an analysis of the references and how they specifically fail to teach the limitations of dependent claim 3, the argument remains too generalized to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant submits “In this regard, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Searson et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1. Instead, as described above, Lekas et al. discloses privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy; and Kim et al. discloses analyzing computer usage data of a user to identify an underlying task being performed by the user. Further, Searson et al. discloses modifying a decision algorithm for assigning credit limits or other credit terms via a graphical user interface. (See Abstract). As claim 9 depends from claim 1, claim 9 is allowable for at least the same reasons.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, page 14]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Searson et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 01/29/2026, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Moreover, the remarks do not address the specific deficiencies in the applied reference and the actual teachings relevant to dependent claim 9. The argument broadly states that “claim 9 depends from claim 1, claim 9 is allowable for at least the same reasons,” but does not provide a detailed analysis of how the references fail to teach the features of claim 9. Without an analysis of the references and how they specifically fail to teach the limitations of dependent claim 9, the argument remains too generalized to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant submits “In this regard, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Edwards et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1. Instead, as described above, Lekas et al. discloses privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy; and Kim et al. discloses analyzing computer usage data of a user to identify an underlying task being performed by the user. Further, Edwards et al. discloses inactivity-based prompting of task completion. (See Abstract). As claim 10 depends from claim 1, claim 10 is allowable for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Edwards et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 10, and reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, page 15]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Edwards et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 01/29/2026, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Moreover, the remarks do not address the specific deficiencies in the applied reference and the actual teachings relevant to dependent claim 10. The argument broadly states that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Edwards et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 10,” but does not substantiate these elements with a detailed analysis of how the references fail to teach the features of claim 10. Without an analysis of the references and how they specifically fail to teach the limitations of dependent claim 10, the argument remains too generalized to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant submits “In this regard, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Wang et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1. Instead, as described above, Lekas et al. discloses privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy; and Kim et al. discloses analyzing computer usage data of a user to identify an underlying task being performed by the user. Further, Wang et al. discloses mining hierarchical patterns based on an Apriori algorithm. (See Abstract). As claim 12 depends from claim 1, claim 12 is allowable for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Wang et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 12, and reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, pages 15-16]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Wang et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 01/29/2026, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Moreover, the remarks do not address the specific deficiencies in the applied reference and the actual teachings relevant to dependent claim 12. The argument broadly states that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Wang et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 12,” but does not substantiate these elements with a detailed analysis of how the references fail to teach the features of claim 12. Without an analysis of the references and how they specifically fail to teach the limitations of dependent claim 12, the argument remains too generalized to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant submits “In this regard, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Siciliano et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1. Instead, as described above, Lekas et al. discloses privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy; and Kim et al. discloses analyzing computer usage data of a user to identify an underlying task being performed by the user. Further, Siciliano et al. discloses a workflow development system. (See Abstract). As claim 13 depends from claim 1, claim 13 is allowable for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Siciliano et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 13, and reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/29/2026, page 16]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Siciliano et al. cannot be said to disclose or suggest in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, as recited in amended independent claim 1,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 01/29/2026, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Moreover, the remarks do not address the specific deficiencies in the applied reference and the actual teachings relevant to dependent claim 13. The argument broadly states that “Lekas et al., Kim et al., and Siciliano et al. do not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 13,” but does not substantiate these elements with a detailed analysis of how the references fail to teach the features of claim 13. Without an analysis of the references and how they specifically fail to teach the limitations of dependent claim 13, the argument remains too generalized to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are
directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Election by Original Presentation
17. Newly submitted claims 24-27 are directed towards a second and third embodiment, different than the embodiment claimed in independent claim 1. However, since the second embodiment and the third embodiment are not part of the action given on the original subject matter and the applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, claims 24-27 cannot be examined. The remaining claims are not readable on the elected invention because the newly added claims 24-27 represent patentably distinct inventions than that presented by the original claim (claim 1). Newly submitted claims 24-27 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 1 recites: “A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system, the operations comprising: based on a subscriber identification (ID) representing a subscriber of a group of subscribers of a cloud-based workflow monitoring service that utilizes communication links between an executable component of the executable components of the system and respective devices of the system corresponding to a group of user interfaces, authenticating use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the subscriber; in response to the authenticating of the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, tracking, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data representing
Newly submitted claim 24 recites: “A method, comprising: authenticating, by a system comprising at least one processor based on a subscriber identification (ID) representing a subscriber of a group of subscribers of a cloud-based workflow monitoring service, a use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service by the subscriber, wherein the cloud-based workflow monitoring service comprises communication links between respective devices corresponding to a group of user interfaces of the system; tracking, by the system via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data, the workflow, wherein the telemetry data represents respective steps of the workflow being performed by the subscriber via the group of user interfaces; determining, by the system, whether the respective steps of the workflow being performed by the subscriber correspond to an occurrence of a defined outcome of interest comprising an access of a help resource; and in response to the respective steps of the workflow being performed by the subscriber being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest comprising the access of the help resource, displaying, by the system, page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest comprising the access of the help resource.”
Newly submitted claim 26 recites: “A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: based on a subscriber identification (ID) representing a subscriber of a group of subscribers of a cloud-based workflow monitoring service, authenticating a use of the cloud- based workflow monitoring service via the subscriber; in response to the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service being authenticated, monitoring, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service using the subscriber ID and telemetry data, a workflow, wherein the telemetry data represents respective steps of the workflow being performed by the subscriber via a group of user interfaces; determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the subscriber has selected a group of help resources via the group of user interfaces more often than a defined percentage of respective numbers of times that other subscribers of the group of subscribers of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service have selected the group of help resources, wherein the group of help resources comprises a support resource for the workflow that has been displayed within a user interface (UI) of the group of user interfaces; and in response to the subscriber being determined to have selected, via the group of user interfaces, the group of help resources more often than the defined percentage of the respective numbers of times that the other subscribers have selected the group of help resources, enhancing, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service within the UI, a presentation of a support resource of the group of support resources.”
Claim 1 (Invention I) is directed towards a system for displaying page metrics. Claims 24-25 (Invention II) are directed to a method for accessing a help resource. Claims 26-27 (Invention III) are directed towards a non-transitory machine-readable medium for presentation of a support resource of the group of support resources.
Claims 24-25 (Invention II) is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct. Similarly, claims 26-27 (Invention III) is directed to a separate invention that is independent or distinct. Nothing in amended claim 1 makes reference to “in response to the respective steps of the workflow being performed by the subscriber being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest comprising the access of the help resource, displaying, by the system, page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest comprising the access of the help resource” as required by Invention II. Similarly, nothing in amended claim 1 makes reference to “in response to the subscriber being determined to have selected, via the group of user interfaces, the group of help resources more often than the defined percentage of the respective numbers of times that the other subscribers have selected the group of help resources, enhancing, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service within the UI, a presentation of a support resource of the group of support resources.” In the instant case, invention I has a separate utility such as enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, whereas invention II has a separate utility such as accessing of a help resource, and invention III has a separate utility such as presenting a support resource of the group of support resources. Claims 24 and 26 introduce limitations that diverge from the scope of original claim 1. The difference in scope justifies the restriction of the new claims, as they present new subject matter that introduces distinct features and should be examined separately from the original claims.
18. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24-25 (directed to non-elected group II) and claims 26-27 directed to non-elected group III) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
As per MPEP § 821.03, [c]laims added by amendment following action by the examiner, MPEP § 818.01, MPEP § 818.02(a), to an invention other than previously claimed, should be treated as indicated by 37 CFR 1.145. As per 37 CFR 1.145, [i]f, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in 37 CFR 1.143 and 1.144.
19. Furthermore, it is noted that claims 24-25 are directed toward the second embodiment and claims 26-27 is directed toward the third embodiment. Since that is not part of the elected group and the applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, claim 24-27 cannot be examined. The remaining claims are not readable on the elected invention because the newly presented claims 24-27 represent a patentably distinct invention than that presented by amended claim 1.
20. As per MPEP § 819, [t]he general policy of the Office is not to permit the applicant to shift to claiming another invention after an election is once made and action given on the elected subject matter. Note that the applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). When claims are presented which the examiner holds are drawn to an invention other than the one elected, he or she should treat the claims as outlined in MPEP § 821.03. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
21. Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-13 and 21-23 have been examined on the merits discussed below. Claims 24-27 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
22. Claims 4, 6-8, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:.
Claims 4, 6-8, and 12-13 were amended to recite “UI.” Claims 4, 6-8, and 12-13 are objected to because the acronym “UI” should first be introduced in its unabridged form in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 was amended to recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: based the telemetry data, displaying…” Claim 6 should recite ““The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: based on the telemetry data, displaying…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
23. 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.
24. Claims 4-8, 11-13, and 21-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
25. Claim 4 was amended to recite “The system of claim 1, wherein the tracking further comprises: in response to the subscriber being determined to have logged in, using the subscriber ID, to the UI ,storing, in a data store corresponding to the executable component of the system…” The terms “the UI” and “the executable component” lack antecedent basis and therefore render the claim indefinite. While claim 1 introduces “a group of user interfaces,” and “executable components,” claims 1/4 do not introduce “a user interface (UI)” and “an executable component.” Appropriate correction is required.
26. Claim 5 recites “sending the timestamped workflow information to the component of the system.” The term “the component of the system” lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claim indefinite. While original claim 1 introduced “a component of the system,” this language was removed from amended claim 1. Appropriate correction is required,
27. Claims 6, 12, and 13 were amended to recite “the UI.” The term “the UI” lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. While claim 1 introduces “a group of user interfaces,” claims 1/6/12/13 do not introduce “a user interface (UI).” Appropriate correction is required.
28. Claim 11 recites “wherein the backend service comprises….” The term “the backend service” lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claim indefinite. While original claim 1 introduced “a backend service,” this language was removed from amended claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
29. Claims 21-23 recite “wherein the UI.” The term “the UI” lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. While claim 1 introduces “a group of user interfaces,” claims 1/21/22/23 do not introduce “a user interface (UI).” Appropriate correction is required.
30. Claim 21 recites “preventing the step from being included in the GUI in the subsequent workflow to facilitate a reduction in a screen clutter in the GUI.” The phrase “screen clutter” is ambiguous because “clutter” is a relative term. There is no basis or standard provided for determining whether the screen is cluttered. Therefore, the claims are rendered indefinite.
31. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
32. 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.
33. Claims 1-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
34. Claims 1-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-13 and 23) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-13 and 23 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for monitoring steps being performed by a subscriber, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system, the operations comprising: based on a subscriber identification (ID) representing a subscriber of a group of subscribers of a cloud-based workflow monitoring service that utilizes communication links between an executable component of the executable components of the system and respective devices of the system corresponding to a group of user interfaces, authenticating use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the subscriber; in response to the authenticating of the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, tracking, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data representing a workflow comprising respective steps being performed by the subscriber via the group of user interfaces, the workflow; determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the respective steps of the workflow correspond to an occurrence of a defined outcome of interest comprising an error that has occurred; and in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel. These steps are organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of forming a team, which falls under the under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited are: at least one processor, at least one memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system, the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links, and respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces (claim 1). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited are: at least one processor, at least one memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system, the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links, and respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces (claim 1). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification acknowledges that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general purpose computer executing instructions to implement the invention (Specification, paragraph 0100). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 23 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to recite details that narrow the same abstracts idea(s) recited in the independent claims, i.e., activities falling within the Certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping as described in MPEP 2106, along with, at most, additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. In particular, dependent claims 2-13 and 21-23 recite steps for “wherein the group of user interfaces comprises at least one of a command-line user interface or an application programming interface,” “wherein the workflow corresponds to a modification of a group of data storage nodes of a data storage cluster corresponding to the subscriber, and wherein the modification comprises a creation of the data storage node, a modification of the data storage node, or a removal of the data storage node,” “wherein the tracking further comprises: in response to the subscriber being determined to have logged in, using the subscriber ID, storing information representing the subscriber ID and the UI, determining steps of the respective steps of the workflow that have been performed by the subscriber, and recording the steps that have been performed by the subscriber,” “wherein the recording of the steps further comprises: determining respective timestamps representing respective times that the steps have been determined to have been performed; associating the respective timestamps with the steps to obtain timestamped workflow information; and sending the timestamped workflow information,” “wherein the operations further comprise: based the telemetry data, displaying the respective steps of the workflow,” “wherein the displaying of the respective steps further comprises: displaying a first portion of the respective steps of the workflow that have been determined, based on the subscriber ID, to have been performed, and displaying a second portion of the respective steps of the workflow that have been determined, based on the subscriber ID, to have been performed,” “wherein the first UI is a first graphical user interface (GUI), a first command-line interface (CLI), or a first application programming interface (API), and wherein the second UI is a second GUI, a second CLI, or a second API,” “wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving an input representing that the subscriber has requested to revoke the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, disabling the tracking,” “wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that inactivity of the workflow satisfies a defined condition representing that the workflow timed out, storing information representing that the workflow has timed out, wherein the information comprises a time that the inactivity of the workflow has been determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the workflow has timed out,” “facilitates, based on the telemetry data, an analysis of the workflow,” “wherein the workflow is a first workflow, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining,, whether a step of the respective steps of the first workflow corresponding to the UI satisfies a defined condition representing that the step has been performed among a group of workflows comprising the workflow less than a defined percentage of an amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows; and in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows less than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, preventing the step from being performed in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow,” “wherein the workflow is a first workflow, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining, whether a step of the respective steps of the first workflow satisfies a defined condition representing that the step has been rarely performed among a group of workflows comprising the workflow compared to remaining steps of the respective steps of the group of workflows; and in response to the step being determined to have been rarely performed among the group of workflows compared to the remaining steps of the group of workflows, preventing the step from being performed in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow,” “wherein the workflow is a first workflow, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining whether a step of the respective steps of the first workflow corresponding to the UI satisfies a defined condition representing that the step has been performed among a group of workflows comprising the workflow greater than a defined percentage of an amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows; and in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows greater than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, facilitating a performance of the step in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow,” “wherein the facilitating of the performance of the step in the subsequent workflow further comprises: emphasizing a widget representing the step and usable to receive a selection of the step, wherein the emphasizing of the widget within the GUI comprises at least one of enlarging the widget in the GUI, highlighting the widget in the GUI, or displaying the widget in a different location of the GUI, different than a previous location of the GUI,” which encompass activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. Dependent claims recite additional elements of: at least one of a command-line user interface or an application programming interface (claim 3), the UI and a data store corresponding to the executable component of the system (claim 4), the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the UI (claim 6), a first UI of the group of user interfaces and a second UI of the group of user interfaces that is different from the first UI (claim 7), a first graphical user interface (GUI), a first command-line interface (CLI), or a first application programming interface (API), a second GUI, a second CLI, or a second API (claim 8), the cloud-based workflow monitoring service (claim 9), the cloud-based workflow monitoring service and a data store corresponding to the component of the system (claim 10), a secure remote service (claim 11), the secure remote service and the UI (claim 12), the secure remote service and the UI (claim 13), wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI) and a widget (claim 23). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible. Even if the steps for sending (claim 5) and displaying (claim 6) are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are 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 generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
35. 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.
36. 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 of this title, 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.
37. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
38. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
39. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas et al., Pub. No.: US 2025/0225460 A1, [hereinafter Lekas], in view of Kim et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0149641 A1, [hereinafter Kim], in further view of Jayapathi et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0251854 A1, [hereinafter Jayapathi]
As per claim 1, Lekas teaches a system (paragraph 0151), comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 0151, discussing that the exemplary computing environment described n comprises a computing device (further comprising a system bus, one or more processors, a system memory, one or more interfaces, one or more non-volatile data storage devices), external peripherals and accessories, external communication devices, remote computing devices, and cloud-based services; paragraph 0155, discussing that processors are logic circuitry capable of receiving programming instructions and processing (or executing) those instructions to perform computer operations); and
at least one memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system, the operations comprising (paragraph 0151, discussing that the exemplary computing environment described n comprises a computing device (further comprising a system bus, one or more processors, a system memory, one or more interfaces, one or more non-volatile data storage devices), external peripherals and accessories, external communication devices, remote computing devices, and cloud-based services; paragraph 0156, discussing that the system memory is processor-accessible data storage in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The system memory may be either or both of two types: non-volatile memory and volatile memory):
based on a subscriber identification (ID) representing a subscriber of a group of subscribers of a cloud-based workflow monitoring service that utilizes communication links between an executable component of the executable components of the system and respective devices of the system corresponding to a user interface, authenticating use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the subscriber (paragraph 0063, discussing that the cloud-based integration server is configured with the addition of an analytics engine configured to process replay data and generate insights about workflow patterns and compliance; paragraph 0121, discussing that the system detects clinician authentication events, verifies user roles and permissions, initializes privacy rules based on context, and creates a unique session identifier…Real-time event monitoring commences at with tracking of user interface interactions, form field entries, navigation patterns, system responses, and compliance checkpoints; paragraph 0130, discussing that operating within the web browser of a client device is a session manager and a workflow engine which both provide support for third party service integration directly into the web browser …The session manager is configured to monitor and store session state information associated with the client device user's current session with a browser based application...According to an aspect, session state information may comprise session variables such as session login time, client device identification or identifiers, and user identification or identifiers. In some implementations, the session manager may also store a client session token associated with the client device and received from the authentication engine responsive to a client session login request. When a client session login request is generated within the browser, the session state information may be retrieved by the session manager and sent to the workflow engine which sends the client session state data to a cloud-based integration server; paragraph 0132, discussing an authentication engine operating on a cloud device that authenticate a user (i.e., client) and presents a service integration token (or authentication identifier token) for integration through the operating system and software applications on the client device; paragraph 0133, discussing that when the authentication engine receives a client session login request/data it may store the received data in a database…the stored data may be used to validate users associated with a received service request. Once the client session login data has been stored, the authentication engine may create and transmit a client session token to a session manager operating within the web browser of the client device. The client session token represents that the user of the client device has successfully logged into the cloud-based integration server and can be used to authenticate the user during subsequent service requests from the client device. In some implementations, the client session token may comprise session state information such as, for example, device ID, session ID, and user/client ID information; paragraph 0143, discussing an exemplary method for providing client authentication and third-party service integration…the process begins when the authentication server receives user login information from a browser based component of the system such as the workflow engine and/or session manager of a client device. The user login information may comprise one or more of a session ID, a device ID, and a client ID. Some or all of the user login information may be used to compare against stored data in a database to determine if the user has logged in before. Some or all of the user login information may be stored in database such as in a user profile associated with the user who submitted the user login information. Once received, the user of the client device is logged into the system…The authentication engine can create a session certificate (e.g., token) which provides user authentication for transacting with cloud-based integration server and third party service integration functions…Upon successful user validation, the authentication engine can create an authentication identifier or token which grants the client access to the third party service by signaling that the client has privileges to access the third party service...; paragraphs 0134, 0151);
in response to the authenticating of the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, tracking, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data representing a workflow comprising respective steps being performed by the subscriber via the user interface (paragraph 0006: “The disclosure relates to the field of workflow analysis and monitoring in browser-based applications..”; paragraph 0011, discussing a system and method for workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy…; paragraph 0013, discussing a method for workflow analysis, comprising the steps of: capturing workflow events from a browser-based application; generating event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data…; storing the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events…; paragraph 0044, discussing that the system enables comprehensive workflow monitoring capabilities…these monitoring capabilities concentrate on workflow patterns and metadata…, enabling analysis of task completion times, process sequence variations, error rates and recovery patterns, resource utilization, user interaction patterns, and system response characteristics; paragraph 0109, discussing that the visualization system supports multiple concurrent indicators to represent complex interactions involving multiple interface elements; paragraph 0121, discussing that the system detects clinician authentication events, verifies user roles and permissions, initializes privacy rules based on context, and creates a unique session identifier…Real-time event monitoring commences at with tracking of user interface interactions, form field entries, navigation patterns, system responses, and compliance checkpoints; paragraph 0132, discussing that a cloud-based integration server may comprise an authentication engine operating on a cloud device that authenticate an user and presents a service integration token (or authentication identifier token) for integration through the operating system and software applications on the client device…; paragraph 0140, discussing that the workflow engine comprises an event monitor which may be configured to receive, retrieve, or otherwise obtain various CRM application process data and user behavior to monitor the steps in a business workflow…The event monitor may analyze the plurality of received data to detect an event. Data associated with the event may be captured by the event monitor and used to determine the type of modal dialog box should be displayed within the CRM browser…; paragraph 0145, discussing that from the browser UI the client (i.e., user) can log into cloud-based integration server by sending a client session login request to authentication engine; paragraph 0147, discussing an exemplary method for dynamically monitoring and regulating business workflow processed…the method involves a workflow engine to receive a plurality of CRM application data and user behavior data…The event monitor analyzes the plurality of CRM application data and user behavior data to detect a workflow event. A business workflow may comprise one or more steps which an enterprise has applied to be followed with respect to a specific process or outcome. For example, a business workflow for an agent representing an enterprise may be the creation of a new customer account wherein the agent gathers customer information and populates customer profile with the gathered information. Continuing the example, a business workflow rule may be that all new customer contact information must be gathered and entered into the CRM before other customer information such as demographic information and/or services/products associated with the customer. Some CRM products do not prevent agents from avoiding steps in the business workflow, and the workflow engine can detect when an event such as a skipped or dismissed step in a business workflow occurs and regulate the action of the agent to remedy the skipped or dismissed step; paragraphs 0045, 0130, 0135, 0136).
Lekas does not explicitly teach a group of user interfaces. However, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches this concept. Kim teaches:
a group of user interfaces (paragraph 0007, discussing a system for identifying automatable tasks is provided. The system includes at least one hardware processor, a communication interface coupled to the at least one hardware processor and configured to communicate with at least one computing device, and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform various functions; paragraph 0059, discussing that the information collected may be employed to create software robot computer programs that are configured to programmatically control one or more other computer programs (e.g., one or more application programs and/or one or more operating systems) to perform one or more tasks at least in part via the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and/or application programming interfaces (APIs) of the other computer program(s); paragraph 0068, 0080); and
tracking, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data representing a workflow comprising respective steps being performed by the subscriber via the group of user interfaces (paragraph 0069, discussing that in some embodiments, Scout Service may receive, via the communication interface, an event log including a plurality of events from at least one computing device running Scout. Each of the plurality of events may include information indicative of an action a performed by a user on the respective computing device and contextual information associated with the action performed by the user. The events and/or event logs may be, for example, pieces of data stored in any suitable format using any suitable data structure(s) using any suitable programming language; paragraph 0070, discussing that Scout Service may analyze the plurality of events to identify one or more tasks being performed by the user. A task may be, for example, a sequence of one or more user interactions with a computing device across one or more applications programs that culminates in an objective being completed. Non-limiting examples of objectives include resetting a password, creating a purchase order, processing payroll, and creating a document. When a user uses multiple application programs to perform a single task, the task may be considered as being composed of multiple sub-tasks, each of the multiple sub-tasks comprising actions performed by using a respective one of the multiple application programs…For example, a user may interact with a computing device to create a legal document by performing a first sub-task of using a web-browser to perform legal research and a second sub-task of using a word processing software application to generate the text of the legal document. Some tasks, however, may involve only a single software application on the computing device. For example, a user may interact with a computing device to process payroll for a company and only use an accounting software application to process the payroll; paragraph 0074, discussing that FIGS. 1A and 1B show an example task tracking system…The task tracking system is suitable to track the tasks being performed by users on a plurality of computing devices; paragraph 0075, discussing that Scout may monitor the particular tasks being performed on the computing device on which it is running. For example, Scout may monitor the task being performed by monitoring keystrokes and/or clicks and gathering contextual information associated with each keystroke and/or click. The contextual information may include information indicative of the state of the user interface when the keystroke and/or click occurred. For example, the contextual information may include information regarding a state of the user interface such as the name of the particular application that the user interacted with, the particular button or field that the user interacted with, and/or the uniform resource locator (URL) link in an active web-browser. The contextual information may be leveraged to gain insight regarding the particular task that the user is performing. For example, a software developer may be using the computing device 102 develop source code and be continuously switching between an application suitable for developing source code and a web-browser to locate code snippets…Scout may advantageously gather useful contextual information such as the particular active application associated with each keystroke. Thereby, the task of developing source code may be more readily identified in the collected data by analyzing the active applications; paragraph 0085, discussing that Scout may employ an object hierarchy to gather at least some of the contextual information associated with an action performed by a user…For example, an object hierarchy for a user interface of a computing device that is executing a calculator software application may comprise an object for the calculator software application and a plurality of objects for each of the buttons shown in a GUI of the calculator software application that are children of the object for the calculator software application. Each of the objects may comprise information regarding the location of the respective element in the user interface, such as where the element is located on the screen. Thereby, Scout may cross-reference a location of a screen click with information from the object hierarchy to determine which element on the screen is located at the same location of the screen click. Further, information regarding the clicked element may be gathered from the object hierarchy; paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together); paragraph 0123, discussing that disclosure may be distributed in a modular fashion among different computers or processors to implement various aspects of the disclosure provided; paragraph 0124).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s feature for tracking, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the communication links using the subscriber ID and telemetry data representing a workflow comprising respective steps being performed by the subscriber via the group of user interface, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Lekas-Kim combination does not explicitly teach determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the respective steps of the workflow correspond to an occurrence of a defined outcome of interest comprising an error that has occurred; and in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel. However, Jayapathi in the analogous art of workflow management systems teaches these concepts. Jayapathi teaches:
determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the respective steps of the workflow correspond to an occurrence of a defined outcome of interest comprising an error that has occurred (paragraph 0068, discussing that additional information may be displayed in the UI. For example, each application could have an indication of criticality, priority, or importance to the organization using the application. As a result, the administrator may be warned that changes to a first application on a server cluster also handling a second, critical application may risk that an unintended error in the first application may jeopardize access to the second, critical application. Similarly, if a first application is already on a server cluster handling a second, critical application and the first application begins to exhibit errors, the UI may display an indication showing the gravity of the errors. As a result, the administrator may be better able to make a judgment whether it is preferable to shift traffic away from the server cluster so a grave error will not affect a critical application, or preferable to tolerate a minor error in a non- critical application and not change any configuration information regarding the server cluster that might ultimately affect the critical application; paragraph 0132, discussing that if a test case fails, an alert may be automatically generated and sent to or displayed to a human operator, indicating that a workflow needs to be revised); and
in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel (paragraph 0068, discussing that additional information may be displayed in the UI. For example, each application could have an indication of criticality, priority, or importance to the organization using the application. As a result, the administrator may be warned that changes to a first application on a server cluster also handling a second, critical application may risk that an unintended error in the first application may jeopardize access to the second, critical application. Similarly, if a first application is already on a server cluster handling a second, critical application and the first application begins to exhibit errors, the UI may display an indication showing the gravity of the errors. As a result, the administrator may be better able to make a judgment whether it is preferable to shift traffic away from the server cluster so a grave error will not affect a critical application, or preferable to tolerate a minor error in a non- critical application and not change any configuration information regarding the server cluster that might ultimately affect the critical application; paragraph 0069, discussing that for another example, each application could have information displayed related to its readiness to go into production or its continued suitability for production. As development and testing continue, the information may be updated until an administrator concludes it is time to direct traffic from a former “blue” system to a new, formerly “green” system with a new software version. Conversely, if significant errors are detected related to an application already in production, a version rollback can be executed by the administrator directing traffic from the current “blue” system to a “green” system that had been the “blue” system for the previous software version; paragraph 0070, discussing that for another example, the current loads, average loads, or other server capacity information may be displayed for each of the server clusters, so that an administrator is able to take load balancing into account when deciding which server cluster should act as the externally available “blue” system, and so that a single server cluster is not designated as “blue” for every application and overloaded compared to another server cluster; paragraph 0132).
The Lekas-Kim combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Jayapathi is directed to a workflow management system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards workflow analysis systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim combination with Jayapathi because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim combination to include Jayapathi’s feature for determining, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, whether the respective steps of the workflow correspond to an occurrence of a defined outcome of interest comprising an error that has occurred; and in response to the respective steps of the workflow being determined to correspond to the occurrence of the defined outcome of interest, displaying page metrics representing pages of respective graphical user interfaces of the group of user interfaces corresponding to the error that has occurred within the workflow to enhance a visibility and communication of the workflow to support personnel, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing the administrator to be better able to make a judgment so a grave error will not affect a critical application (Jayapthi at paragraph 0068); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 1. Lekas does not explicitly teach wherein the group of user interfaces comprises at least one of a command-line user interface or an application programming interface. However, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches this concept. Kim teaches:
wherein the group of user interfaces comprises at least one of a command-line user interface or an application programming interface (paragraph 0059, discussing that the identified tasks performed by one or more employees of a business may be automatically evaluated for automating using software. For example, the information collected may be employed to create software robot computer programs (hereinafter, “software robots”) that are configured to programmatically control one or more other computer programs (e.g., one or more application programs and/or one or more operating systems) to perform one or more tasks at least in part via the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and/or application programming interfaces (APIs) of the other computer program(s); paragraph 0080, discussing that Scout Service may accept queries through a command-line interface or a graphical user interface (GUI); paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together); paragraph 0085).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s feature for including wherein the group of user interfaces comprises at least one of a command-line user interface or an application programming interface, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 1. Lekas further teaches wherein the tracking further comprises: in response to the subscriber being determined to have logged in, using the subscriber ID, to the UI, storing, in a data store corresponding to the executable component of the system, information representing the subscriber ID and the UI (paragraph 0013, discussing a method for workflow analysis, comprising the steps of: capturing workflow events from a browser-based application; generating event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data while excluding sensitive content; storing the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events; reconstructing the workflow events using the stored event pointers; and displaying the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface; paragraph 0121, discussing that the system detects clinician authentication events, verifies user roles and permissions, initializes privacy rules based on context, and creates a unique session identifier…Real-time event monitoring commences at with tracking of user interface interactions, form field entries, navigation patterns, system responses, and compliance checkpoints; paragraph 0128, discussing that the structured approach to event capture, processing, storage, replay, and analysis ensures comprehensive coverage of workflow monitoring needs; paragraph 0130, discussing that operating within the web browser of a client device is a session manager and a workflow engine which both provide support for third party service integration directly into the web browser …The session manager is configured to monitor and store session state information associated with the client device user's current session with a browser based application...According to an aspect, session state information may comprise session variables such as session login time, client device identification or identifiers, and user identification or identifiers . In some implementations, the session manager may also store a client session token associated with the client device and received from the authentication engine responsive to a client session login request. When a client session login request is generated within the browser, the session state information may be retrieved by the session manager and sent to the workflow engine which sends the client session state data to a cloud-based integration server),
determining steps of the respective steps of the workflow that have been performed by the subscriber via the UI (paragraph 0013, discussing a method for workflow analysis, comprising the steps of: capturing workflow events from a browser-based application; generating event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data while excluding sensitive content; storing the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events; reconstructing the workflow events using the stored event pointers; and displaying the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface; paragraph 0140, discussing that the workflow engine comprises an event monitor which may be configured to receive, retrieve, or otherwise obtain various CRM application process data and user behavior to monitor the steps in a business workflow. In some embodiments, a database may be present and configured to store a plurality of business rules and/or workflows which can be used to compare against received application data to determine when a business workflow step has been skipped or otherwise omitted by the CRM application user (e.g., agent, customer service representative, etc.). The event monitor may analyze the plurality of received data to detect an event), and
recording, in the data store, the steps that have been performed by the subscriber via the UI (paragraph 0013, discussing a method for workflow analysis, comprising the steps of: capturing workflow events from a browser-based application; generating event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data while excluding sensitive content; storing the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events; reconstructing the workflow events using the stored event pointers; and displaying the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface; paragraph 0060, discussing that an event capture module operates within the workflow engine and is configured to intercept and record workflow-related events and API calls occurring within the browser-based application. The event capture module creates and stores event pointers rather than complete screen recordings or full data captures; paragraph 0122).
Lekas does not explicitly teach the group of user interfaces. However, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches this concept. Kim teaches:
a user interface (UI) of the group of user interfaces (paragraph 0070, discussing that Scout Service may analyze the plurality of events to identify one or more tasks being performed by the user. A task may be, for example, a sequence of one or more user interactions with a computing device across one or more applications programs that culminates in an objective being completed. Non-limiting examples of objectives include resetting a password, creating a purchase order, processing payroll, and creating a document. When a user uses multiple application programs to perform a single task, the task may be considered as being composed of multiple sub-tasks, each of the multiple sub-tasks comprising actions performed by using a respective one of the multiple application programs…For example, a user may interact with a computing device to create a legal document by performing a first sub-task of using a web-browser to perform legal research and a second sub-task of using a word processing software application to generate the text of the legal document. Some tasks, however, may involve only a single software application on the computing device. For example, a user may interact with a computing device to process payroll for a company and only use an accounting software application to process the payroll; paragraph 0074, discussing that FIGS. 1A and 1B show an example task tracking system…The task tracking system is suitable to track the tasks being performed by users on a plurality of computing devices; paragraph 0085, discussing that Scout may employ an object hierarchy to gather at least some of the contextual information associated with an action performed by a user…For example, an object hierarchy for a user interface of a computing device that is executing a calculator software application may comprise an object for the calculator software application and a plurality of objects for each of the buttons shown in a GUI of the calculator software application that are children of the object for the calculator software application. Each of the objects may comprise information regarding the location of the respective element in the user interface, such as where the element is located on the screen. Thereby, Scout may cross-reference a location of a screen click with information from the object hierarchy to determine which element on the screen is located at the same location of the screen click. Further, information regarding the clicked element may be gathered from the object hierarchy; paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together)).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s feature for including a user interface (UI) of the group of user interfaces, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 4. Leka further teaches wherein the recording of the steps further comprises: determining respective timestamps representing respective times that the steps have been determined to have been performed (paragraph 0013, discussing a method for workflow analysis, comprising the steps of: capturing workflow events from a browser-based application; generating event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data while excluding sensitive content; storing the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events; reconstructing the workflow events using the stored event pointers; and displaying the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface; paragraphs 0078-0088, discussing that during the original workflow execution, the event capture module records the following sequence of events: User login to CRM system at timestamp T1. Navigation to “New Customer” form at T1+2 s. Entry of customer name “John Smith” at T1+10 s. Entry of customer email “john@email.com” at T1+15s. Attempted submission of form without required phone number at T1+20s. System warning displayed about missing phone number at T1+20.1 s. Entry of phone number “555-0123” at T1+25 s. Successful form submission at T1+27 s. Navigation to “New Ticket” form at T1+35 s. Ticket creation with initial details at T1+45 s);
associating the respective timestamps with the steps to obtain timestamped workflow information (paragraph 0013, discussing a method for workflow analysis, comprising the steps of: capturing workflow events from a browser-based application; generating event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data while excluding sensitive content; storing the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events; reconstructing the workflow events using the stored event pointers; and displaying the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface; paragraph 0015, discussing a timeline showing the sequence of workflow events; paragraph 0094, discussing that workflow sequences can be converted into pattern signatures using, for example, a locality-sensitive hashing algorithm that preserves temporal relationships between events while enabling efficient comparison; paragraphs 0078-0088, 0099); and
sending the timestamped workflow information to the component of the system (paragraph 0013, discussing a method for workflow analysis, comprising the steps of: capturing workflow events from a browser-based application; generating event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data while excluding sensitive content; storing the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events; reconstructing the workflow events using the stored event pointers; and displaying the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface; paragraph 0044, discussing that these monitoring capabilities concentrate on workflow patterns, enabling analysis of task completion times, process sequence variations, error rates and recovery patterns, resource utilization, user interaction patterns; paragraph 0135, discussing sending session state information to the authentication engine; paragraphs 0122, 0143, 0145, 0149).
As per claim 6, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 1. Lekas further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: based the telemetry data, displaying, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service via the UI, the respective steps of the workflow (paragraph 0011, discussing a system and method for workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface while maintaining data privacy. The system generates event data that excludes sensitive content while preserving workflow sequence information, enabling reconstruction and analysis of user workflows without exposing protected information. Event data is stored and used to reconstruct workflow sequences, which can be presented through a user interface for analysis, training, and compliance monitoring. The system supports multiple privacy contexts and can substitute synthetic data during workflow reconstruction, allowing organizations to analyze business processes without compromising sensitive information. The system enables comprehensive workflow monitoring and analysis while addressing privacy requirements in regulated environments, supporting use cases including quality assurance, training, and process optimization; paragraph 0012, discussing a system for privacy-preserving workflow analysis, comprising: a computing device comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the computing device to: capture workflow events from a browser-based application; generate event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data while excluding sensitive content; store the event pointers in a sequence corresponding to the workflow events; reconstruct the workflow events using the stored event pointers; and display the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface; paragraph 0145, discussing that the workflow engine can format and display the third party data in a browser based CRM system UI wherein a client may construct, test, and execute workflows with the browser UI using the third party data).
As per claim 7, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 6. Although not explicitly taught by Lekas, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches wherein the displaying of the respective steps further comprises: displaying a first portion of the respective steps of the workflow that have been determined, based on the subscriber ID, to have been performed via a first UI of the group of user interfaces (paragraph 0075, discussing that Scout may monitor the particular tasks being performed on the computing device on which it is running. For example, Scout may monitor the task being performed by monitoring keystrokes and/or clicks and gathering contextual information associated with each keystroke and/or click. The contextual information may include information indicative of the state of the user interface when the keystroke and/or click occurred. For example, the contextual information may include information regarding a state of the user interface such as the name of the particular application that the user interacted with, the particular button or field that the user interacted with, and/or the uniform resource locator (URL) link in an active web-browser. The contextual information may be leveraged to gain insight regarding the particular task that the user is performing. For example, a software developer may be using the computing device to develop source code and be continuously switching between an application suitable for developing source code and a web-browser to locate code snippets. Unlike traditional keystroke loggers that would merely gather a string of depressed keys including bits of source code and web URLs, Scout may advantageously gather useful contextual information such as the particular active application associated with each keystroke. Thereby, the task of developing source code may be more readily identified in the collected data by analyzing the active applications; paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together). Thereby, each event may be assigned to a plurality of clusters); and
displaying a second portion of the respective steps of the workflow that have been determined, based on the subscriber ID, to have been performed via a second UI of the group of user interfaces that is different from the first UI (paragraph 0075, discussing that Scout may monitor the particular tasks being performed on the computing device on which it is running. For example, Scout may monitor the task being performed by monitoring keystrokes and/or clicks and gathering contextual information associated with each keystroke and/or click. The contextual information may include information indicative of the state of the user interface when the keystroke and/or click occurred. For example, the contextual information may include information regarding a state of the user interface such as the name of the particular application that the user interacted with, the particular button or field that the user interacted with, and/or the uniform resource locator (URL) link in an active web-browser. The contextual information may be leveraged to gain insight regarding the particular task that the user is performing. For example, a software developer may be using the computing device to develop source code and be continuously switching between an application suitable for developing source code and a web-browser to locate code snippets. Unlike traditional keystroke loggers that would merely gather a string of depressed keys including bits of source code and web URLs, Scout may advantageously gather useful contextual information such as the particular active application associated with each keystroke. Thereby, the task of developing source code may be more readily identified in the collected data by analyzing the active applications; paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together). Thereby, each event may be assigned to a plurality of clusters; paragraph 0105, discussing that an example plurality of events that are hierarchically clustered is shown in FIG. 5 by hierarchically clustered events 500….the hierarchically clustered events 500 are clustered across five layers ordered from broadest to narrowest: (1) root 502; (2) application 504; (3) GUI screen 506; and (4) element 508. Each cluster in the hierarchically clustered events 500 is represented by a circle. The size of each circle may be indicative of, for example, the number of events that are assigned to the cluster associated with the circle. As shown in the hierarchically clustered events 500, the user primarily uses the “Start” button in a WINDOWS operating system to access four different applications ordered from most frequently used to least frequently used: (1) Money Manager; (2) Chrome; (3) Excel; and (4) Explorer.).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s features for displaying a first portion of the respective steps of the workflow that have been determined, based on the subscriber ID, to have been performed via a first UI of the group of user interface, and displaying a second portion of the respective steps of the workflow that have been determined, based on the subscriber ID, to have been performed via a second UI of the group of user interfaces that is different from the first UI, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 7. Lekas further teaches wherein the first UI is a first graphical user interface (GUI), a first command-line interface (CLI), or a first application programming interface (API) (paragraph 0006: “The disclosure relates to the field of workflow analysis and monitoring in browser-based applications..”; paragraph 0109, discussing that the visualization system supports multiple concurrent indicators to represent complex interactions involving multiple interface elements; paragraph 0131, discussing that the workflow engine is present to support third party service integration into the browser based application (e.g., browser-based CRM system) and configured to process browser based service requests originating from inside the browser user interface (e.g., CRM system user interface)…; paragraph 0140, discussing that the workflow engine comprises an event monitor which may be configured to receive, retrieve, or otherwise obtain various CRM application process data and user behavior to monitor the steps in a business workflow…The event monitor may analyze the plurality of received data to detect an event. Data associated with the event may be captured by the event monitor and used to determine the type of modal dialog box should be displayed within the CRM browser…; paragraph 0147, discussing an exemplary method for dynamically monitoring and regulating business workflow processed…the method involves a workflow engine to receive a plurality of CRM application data and user behavior data…The event monitor analyzes the plurality of CRM application data and user behavior data to detect a workflow event. A business workflow may comprise one or more steps which an enterprise has applied to be followed with respect to a specific process or outcome. For example, a business workflow for an agent representing an enterprise may be the creation of a new customer account wherein the agent gathers customer information and populates customer profile with the gathered information. Continuing the example, a business workflow rule may be that all new customer contact information must be gathered and entered into the CRM before other customer information such as demographic information and/or services/products associated with the customer. Some CRM products do not prevent agents from avoiding steps in the business workflow, and the workflow engine can detect when an event such as a skipped or dismissed step in a business workflow occurs and regulate the action of the agent to remedy the skipped or dismissed step).
Lekas does not explicitly teach wherein the second UI is a second GUI, a second CLI, or a second API. However, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches this concept. Kim teaches:
wherein the second UI is a second GUI, a second CLI, or a second API (paragraph 0080, discussing that Scout Service may accept queries through a command-line interface or a graphical user interface (GUI); paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together); paragraph 0085).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s feature for including wherein the second UI is a second GUI, a second CLI, or a second API, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 1. Lekas further teaches wherein the backend service comprises a secure remote service that facilitates, based on the telemetry data, an analysis of the workflow (paragraph 0164, discussing that cloud-based services are Internet-accessible services implemented on collections of networked remote computing devices. Cloud-based services are typically accessed via application programming interfaces (APIs) which are software interfaces which provide access to computing services within the cloud-based service via API calls, which are pre-defined protocols for requesting a computing service and receiving the results of that computing service. While cloud-based services may comprise any type of computer processing or storage, three common categories of cloud-based services are microservices, cloud computing services, and distributed computing services; paragraph 0166, discussing that cloud computing services are delivery of computing resources and services over the Internet from a remote location. Cloud computing services provide additional computer hardware and storage on as-needed or subscription basis. Cloud computing services can provide large amounts of scalable data storage, access to sophisticated software and powerful server-based processing, or entire computing infrastructures and platforms. For example, cloud computing services can provide virtualized computing resources such as virtual machines, storage, and networks, platforms for developing, running, and managing applications without the complexity of infrastructure management, and complete software applications over the Internet on a subscription basis).
40. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Maccanti et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0322017 A1, [hereinafter Maccanti].
As per claim 3, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Lekas-Kim combination, Maccanti in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches wherein the workflow corresponds to a modification of a group of data storage nodes of a data storage cluster corresponding to the subscriber, and wherein the modification comprises a creation of the data storage node, a modification of the data storage node, or a removal of the data storage node (paragraph 0083, discussing that the workflow may include updating the status of the table to “Creating” to reflect the fact that a workflow is currently working to create the table. In some embodiments, the table status may be atomically updated to “Creating”. In such embodiments, if multiple workflows attempt to perform this same table creation operation, only one will succeed, thus allowing the system to avoid a race condition, in this case. The workflow may also include determining whether any old partitions exist that include the table name specified for the new table, as in 530. For example, if a creation operation specifying this table name has been attempted (and failed) in the past, there may be remnant partitions remaining in the system that should be deleted before proceeding with the rest of the CreateTable workflow. In some embodiments, the workflow may include querying metadata (e.g., the Tables table) for any partitions associated with this table name. For example, there may be remnants of a previous failed attempt to create a table with this table name in the system, including metadata for the table in one or more metadata tables. For each partition found, there may be multiple replicas, and each of these replicas may be physically deleted from the storage nodes on which they reside; paragraph 0142, discussing that the method may include, for each partition of the table being backed up, the administrative component requesting that a replica back up the partition, which may include exporting, verifying and shipping the partition data to a remote storage system. For example, in some embodiments, the administrative component may be configured to spawn separate tasks to back up each partition individually, independently, and in parallel (or to invoke one or more external workflow managers to monitor and control the partition backup operations). In other embodiments, some or all of the partitions of the table may be backed up sequentially. Once all of the partitions have been backed up, the method may include the administrative component shipping metadata for the table and/or for some or all of the partitions thereof to the remote storage system and updating the status of the backup to indicate that the backup operation is Complete or Ready).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Maccanti is directed towards data management systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Maccanti because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Maccanti’s feature for including wherein the workflow corresponds to a modification of a group of data storage nodes of a data storage cluster corresponding to the subscriber, and wherein the modification comprises a creation of the data storage node, a modification of the data storage node, or a removal of the data storage node, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of more evenly distributing the system workload and improve performance (Maccanti at paragraph 0096); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
41. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Searson et al., Patent No.: US 10,417,704 B2, [hereinafter Searson].
As per claim 9, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Lekas-Kim combination, Searson in the analogous art of task monitoring systems teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving an input representing that the subscriber has requested to revoke the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, disabling, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, the tracking (col. 8, lines 24-47, discussing that the storage of data for monitoring is performed by a computing system different from the computing system operating the design software. For example, with respect to FIG. 1, the design software may operate on manager computer 101, while the storage of data for monitoring is done by production server 102. Thus, when the “toggle monitoring” option 303 is selected, the manager computer 101 may send an instruction to production server 102 to enable or disable monitoring. The instruction may then be sent to the production server 102 upon occurrence of an event, such as the user saving the process flow being designed, or the user requesting that the process flow be deployed for production. Alternatively, the instruction may be sent in real time so that monitoring may be started or stopped without significant delay).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Searson describes methods of automation and assistance in the creation and design of process flows. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Searson because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Searson’s feature for including wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving an input representing that the subscriber has requested to revoke the use of the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, disabling, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service, the tracking, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improving the decisioning process (Searson at col. 7, lines 56-65); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
42. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Edwards et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0333959 A1, [hereinafter Edwards].
As per claim 10, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Lekas-Kim combination, Edwards in the analogous art of task monitoring systems teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that inactivity of the workflow satisfies a defined condition representing that the workflow timed out, storing, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service in a data store corresponding to the component of the system, information representing that the workflow has timed out, wherein the information comprises a time that the inactivity of the workflow has been determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the workflow has timed out (paragraph 0006, discussing a system for inactivity-based prompting of task completion may include at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor operatively connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations. The operations may include identifying a task related to an account as an incomplete task and a task status related to the task as incomplete, storing the task and the task status in a data store in association with an account identifier, and receiving a session inactivity indication for an account session established via an application executing on a user computing device. The operations may also include querying the data store, using the account identifier, to determine the task status for the task in response to receiving the session inactivity indication, and determining the task status remains incomplete. The operations may further include generating a notification indicating the task is incomplete…; paragraph 0030, discussing that the account services system, task monitoring system, and/or data storage system may be part of a cloud service computer system; paragraph 0044, discussing a process that may include storing the task in a data store in association with an identifier of the account. For example, the task monitoring system may provide instructions that include at least a descriptor for the task and the identifier of the account to the task data store. In some examples, the task data store may include one or more tables that store task-related information for a plurality of accounts, each having associated identifiers; paragraph 0046, discussing receiving a session inactivity indication for the session of the account established via the application executing on the user computing device. In some examples, the task monitoring system may receive the session inactivity indication as part of a data stream transmitted from the application over the network in response to the application detecting one or more events associated with the session; paragraph 0048, discussing that another example event may include a detected lack of activity associated with the application and/or the application losing focus. In some examples, the event may trigger the transmission of the session inactivity indication immediately upon detecting the lack of activity. In other examples, the event may trigger the transmission of the session inactivity indication upon detecting the lack of activity and/or loss of focus for a particular period of time. Additionally, in further examples, the particular period of time may be greater than a first threshold period of time of inactivity and less than a second threshold period of time of inactivity associated with an invalidation of the session due to timeout. For example, if the application automatically invalidates the session after 10 minutes of inactivity (e.g., the second threshold period of time is 10 minutes), the session inactivity indication may be transmitted upon detecting a lack of activity for 3 minutes. The first threshold period of time may account for common user behavior, such as the shifting of focus between or among activities when more than one activity is being performed at a time. When the application is a locally installed application, inactivity may be detected when the application is no longer the active application that the user U is interacting with. For example, the application may remain open, but once a user opens or shifts focus to another open application locally installed or rendered in a web browser, the application may no longer be the active application…; paragraph 0050, discussing that in response to receiving the session inactivity indication, the process may proceed to step 208, where the data store may be queried, using the identifier of the account, to determine whether the task has been completed (or otherwise remains incomplete). For example, the task monitoring system may query the task data store using the identifier specific to the account to determine any previously identified tasks that have not been completed based on the task statuses of the tasks for the account maintained in the table stored within the task data store).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Edwards describes task completion monitoring associated with an application account session. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Edwards because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Edwards’ feature for including wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that inactivity of the workflow satisfies a defined condition representing that the workflow timed out, storing, by the cloud-based workflow monitoring service in a data store corresponding to the component of the system, information representing that the workflow has timed out, wherein the information comprises a time that the inactivity of the workflow has been determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the workflow has timed out, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of enabling generation of a notification for a task determined to be incomplete responsive to detecting inactivity of the application account session to prompt task completion (Edwards at paragraph 0004); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
43. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Wang et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0285424 A1, [hereinafter Wang].
As per claim 12, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 11. Lekas further teaches wherein the workflow is a first workflow, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by the secure remote service, whether a step of the respective steps of the first workflow corresponding to the UI satisfies a defined condition representing that the step has been performed among a group of workflows comprising the workflow less than a defined percentage of an amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows (paragraph 0100, discussing that the pattern store implements versioning to track pattern evolution over time and maintains bidirectional links between related patterns. An automatic pruning mechanism may be implemented which removes or archives patterns that become obsolete or are rarely matched. In some aspects, pattern matching operations may use an LSH (Locality-Sensitive Hashing) index to enable efficient similarity searches. The system provides configurable retention policies that can be customized based on pattern significance scores, usage frequency, resource constraints, and compliance requirements. A background optimization process continuously monitors access patterns and adjusts storage distribution across layers to optimize retrieval performance; paragraph 0140, discussing that the workflow engine comprises an event monitor which may be configured to receive, retrieve, or otherwise obtain various CRM application process data and user behavior to monitor the steps in a business workflow. In some embodiments, a database may be present and configured to store a plurality of business rules and/or workflows which can be used to compare against received application data to determine when a business workflow step has been skipped or otherwise omitted by the CRM application user; paragraph 0147, discussing that the event monitor analyzes the plurality of CRM application data and user behavior data to detect a workflow event. A business workflow may comprise one or more steps which an enterprise has applied to be followed with respect to a specific process or outcome. For example, a business workflow for an agent representing an enterprise may be the creation of a new customer account wherein the agent gathers customer information and populates customer profile with the gathered information. Continuing the example, a business workflow rule may be that all new customer contact information must be gathered and entered into the CRM before other customer information such as demographic information and/or services/products associated with the customer. Some CRM products do not prevent agents from avoiding steps in the business workflow, and workflow engine can detect when an event such as a skipped or dismissed step in a business workflow occurs and regulate the action of the agent to remedy the skipped or dismissed step).
Lekas does not explicitly teach in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows less than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, preventing, by the secure remote service, the step from being performed via the UI in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow. However, Wang in the analogous art of data analysis systems teaches this concept. Wang teaches:
in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows less than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, preventing, by the secure remote service, the step from being performed via the UI in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow (paragraph 0002, discussing that pattern mining, a subfield of data mining, is a process of analyzing data from different perspectives to identify strong and interesting relations among variables in datasets; paragraph 0147, discussing that Step 1 helps to avoid unnecessary computing on infrequent items and reduces the dictionary size of items. Depending on the number of frequent items, the items can be encoded by 8-bit or 16-bit symbols in step 2. Different encoding schemes lead to different automaton designs and automaton capacities. Step 3 removes infrequent items from the input sequences, recodes items, and removes very short transactions. Step 4 sorts items in each itemset to fit the automaton design described in Section. The data pre-processing is only carried out once per workflow; paragraph 0207, discussing that an operating system commonly processes system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources, such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing files).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Wang is directed to a data analysis system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data analysis systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Wang because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data analysis, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Wang’s feature for including in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows less than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, preventing, by the secure remote service, the step from being performed via the UI in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing improvements in performance and energy efficiency (Wang at paragraph 0023); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
44. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Siciliano et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0316363 A1, [hereinafter Siciliano].
As per claim 13, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 11. Lekas further teaches wherein the workflow is a first workflow, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by the secure remote service, whether a step of the respective steps of the first workflow corresponding to the UI satisfies a defined condition representing that the step has been performed among a group of workflows comprising the workflow greater than a defined percentage of an amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows (paragraph 0074, discussing that he system implements several performance optimizations including: efficient event pointer storage using compressed metadata structures; asynchronous analytics processing to minimize impact on live operations; intelligent caching of frequently accessed workflow patterns; and dynamic resource allocation based on system load and analysis requirements; paragraph 0098, discussing that the bottom layer comprises storage and validation components: a pattern store, a rules engine, and an audit system. According to an embodiment, pattern store implements a specialized storage system optimized for pattern retrieval and comparison operations using a multi-level storage architecture. This architecture comprises a fast access cache layer implemented using an in-memory grid structure for frequently accessed patterns, a primary storage layer, and a long-term archive layer for historical pattern data).
Lekas does not explicitly teach in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows greater than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, facilitating, by the secure remote service via the UI, a performance of the step in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow. However, Siciliano in the analogous art of workflow development systems teaches this concept. Siciliano teaches:
in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows greater than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, facilitating, by the secure remote service via the UI, a performance of the step in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow (paragraph 0093, discussing a recommendation logic that may be configured to select the one or more workflow templates from among the plurality of workflow templates based on a frequency of use thereof within the organization or department to which the user belongs. In further accordance with this example, a set of workflow templates that are determined to be most frequently used by persons within the same organization or department as the user can be selected for presentation to the user. In still further accordance with this example, the workflow templates that are selected for presentation may be ordered or ranked for presentation from most-frequently-used to least-frequently-used; paragraph 0115, discussing that in further accordance with this example, a set of connectors that are determined to be most frequently selected by persons within the same organization or department as the user can be selected for presentation to the user. In still further accordance with this example, the connectors that are selected for presentation may be ordered or ranked for presentation from most-frequently-selected to least-frequently-selected; paragraph 0134, discussing that in an embodiment in which the obtained user information includes an identifier of one or more other users that are deemed similar to the user, the recommendation logic may be configured to select the one or more workflow steps from among the plurality of workflow steps based on a frequency of use thereof by the one or more other users that are deemed similar to the user. In further accordance with this example, a set of workflow steps that are determined to be most frequently used in workflows by one or more persons deemed similar to the user can be selected for presentation to the user. In still further accordance with this example, the workflow steps that are selected for presentation may be ordered or ranked for presentation from most-frequently-used to least-frequently-used).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Siciliano is directed to workflow development systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards workflow analysis systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Siciliano because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Siciliano’s feature for including in response to the step being determined to satisfy the defined condition representing that the step has been performed among the group of workflows greater than the defined percentage of the amount of the respective steps that have been performed among the group of workflows, facilitating, by the secure remote service via the UI, a performance of the step in a subsequent workflow that is subsequent to the workflow, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improving the user experience because the user is enabled to more quickly locate desired workflow templates (Siciliano at paragraph 0107); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
45. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Haug et al., Pub. No.: US 2007/0157124 A1, [hereinafter Haug].
As per claim 21, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 12. Lekas does not explicitly teach wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI). However, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches this concept. Kim teaches:
wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI) (paragraph 0059, discussing that the identified tasks performed by one or more employees of a business may be automatically evaluated for automating using software. For example, the information collected may be employed to create software robot computer programs (hereinafter, “software robots”) that are configured to programmatically control one or more other computer programs (e.g., one or more application programs and/or one or more operating systems) to perform one or more tasks at least in part via the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and/or application programming interfaces (APIs) of the other computer program(s); paragraph 0080, discussing that Scout Service may accept queries through a command-line interface or a graphical user interface (GUI); paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together); paragraph 0085).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s feature for including wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI), in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Although not explicitly taught by the Lekas-Kim combination, Haug in the analogous art of data analysis systems teaches wherein the preventing of the step from being performed via the GUI in the subsequent workflow further comprises: preventing the step from being included in the GUI in the subsequent workflow to facilitate a reduction in a screen clutter in the GUI (paragraph 0011, discussing a method and system for reducing graphical clutter in computer displays. One or more graphical elements for interactivity and control may be hidden, and only displayed on a computer screen when needed, for example in response to an interactive event, such as the selection or activation of a related element or field. The graphical elements may be, for example, fields such as text boxes, or keys or buttons for invoking functionality such as displaying a drop-down list. By only displaying such interactive and control elements when needed, graphical clutter in a computer display may be reduced and the space that is saved may be used for other purposes; paragraph 0017, discussing that a computer display with hidden graphical elements for interactive control may be implemented, for example, at least in part by computer-executable instructions according to embodiments of the present invention. The instructions may generate, possibly in association with conventional code that controls aspects of a display's appearance, a display on a display device, where the display includes hidden graphical control elements. In embodiments, the hidden controls may be included in a tabular display).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Haug is directed to a method and system for reducing graphical clutter in computer displays. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data analysis systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Haug because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data analysis, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Haug’s feature for including wherein the preventing of the step from being performed via the GUI in the subsequent workflow further comprises: preventing the step from being included in the GUI in the subsequent workflow to facilitate a reduction in a screen clutter in the GUI, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of reducing graphical clutter in computer displays (Haug at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
46. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Mayor, Pub. No.: US 2014/0173521 A1, [hereinafter Mayor].
As per claim 21, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 12. Lekas does not explicitly teach wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI). However, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches this concept. Kim teaches:
wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI) (paragraph 0059, discussing that the identified tasks performed by one or more employees of a business may be automatically evaluated for automating using software. For example, the information collected may be employed to create software robot computer programs (hereinafter, “software robots”) that are configured to programmatically control one or more other computer programs (e.g., one or more application programs and/or one or more operating systems) to perform one or more tasks at least in part via the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and/or application programming interfaces (APIs) of the other computer program(s); paragraph 0080, discussing that Scout Service may accept queries through a command-line interface or a graphical user interface (GUI); paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together); paragraph 0085).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s feature for including wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI), in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
While Lekas describes keyboard shortcuts (paragraph 0117), the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination does not explicitly teach wherein the facilitating of the performance of the step in the subsequent workflow further comprises: rendering, within the GUI, a shortcut representing the step to receive a selection, via the shortcut, of the step to enable the performance of the step. However, Mayor in the analogous art of application management systems teaches this concept (paragraph 0003, discussing that a shortcut can be created that allows a user to directly access a graphical user interface or subscreen of an application. The user can view an application user interface on a mobile device and provide input to cause a shortcut to be created for invoking the application user interface; paragraph 0029, discussing that a user can create a shortcut to GUI 600 on GUI 100 by selecting graphical object 608. When selected from GUI 100, the shortcut can cause GUI 600 to be immediately displayed upon invocation of the settings application or function; paragraph 0038, discussing that a GUI shortcut can be selected to invoke a GUI. When the GUI shortcut is selected, the mobile device can invoke the "Settings" application or function and pass a GUI identifier corresponding to the GUI as a parameter to the invocation of the "Settings" application or function. The "Settings" application or function can use the GUI identifier to determine which GUI to display first; paragraphs 0048, 0063).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapthi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Mayor is directed to a method and system for reducing graphical clutter in computer displays. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data analysis systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Mayor because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data analysis, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Mayor’s feature for including wherein the facilitating of the performance of the step in the subsequent workflow further comprises: rendering, within the GUI, a shortcut representing the step to receive a selection, via the shortcut, of the step to enable the performance of the step, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating graphic user interface processing (Mayor at paragraph 0064); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
47. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekas in view of Kim, in view of Jayapathi, in further view of Fairweather, Pub. No.: US 20070112714 A1, [hereinafter Fairweather].
As per claim 23, the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination teaches the system of claim 13.
Lekas does not explicitly teach wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI). However, Kim in the analogous art of workflow monitoring systems teaches this concept. Kim teaches:
wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI) (paragraph 0059, discussing that the identified tasks performed by one or more employees of a business may be automatically evaluated for automating using software. For example, the information collected may be employed to create software robot computer programs (hereinafter, “software robots”) that are configured to programmatically control one or more other computer programs (e.g., one or more application programs and/or one or more operating systems) to perform one or more tasks at least in part via the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and/or application programming interfaces (APIs) of the other computer program(s); paragraph 0080, discussing that Scout Service may accept queries through a command-line interface or a graphical user interface (GUI); paragraph 0104, discussing that Scout Service may employ hierarchical clustering techniques to cluster the plurality of events. In these embodiments, the events of the plurality of events may comprise multiple layers of information and clustered may be identified at each layer within the plurality of layers. For example, an event may comprise: (1) an action; (2) an indication of which GUI screen the action was performed in (e.g., which GUI screen of a plurality of GUI screens associated with an application); and (3) an indication of which application the application was performed in. In this example, Scout Service may cluster the plurality of events by GUI screen (e.g., events that are associated with the same GUI screen are grouped together) and also cluster the plurality of events by application (e.g., events that are associated with the application are grouped together); paragraph 0085).
Lekas is directed towards a system and method for privacy-preserving workflow analysis that monitors user interactions with an application interface. Kim describes a system for analyzing computer usage data. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards usage monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lekas with Kim because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for usage monitoring systems, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying Lekas to include Kim’s feature for including wherein the UI is a graphical UI (GUI), in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of accurately identifying the underlying tasks being performed by a user (Kim at paragraph 0055); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
While Jayapthi describes a widget (paragraph 0113), the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination does not explicitly teach wherein the facilitating of the performance of the step in the subsequent workflow further comprises: emphasizing, within the GUI, a widget representing the step and usable to receive a selection of the step, wherein the emphasizing of the widget within the GUI comprises at least one of enlarging the widget in the GUI, highlighting the widget in the GUI, or displaying the widget in a different location of the GUI, different than a previous location of the GUI . However, Fairweather in the analogous art of workflow management systems teaches this concept (paragraph 1194, discussing providing a corresponding layout of widgets within the user interface; paragraph 1672, discussing that an example case statement using an atomic widget is shown. In this example, the case statement within the widget 210 evaluates the integer input 220 against 5 different values or ranges. Only one of the outputs 231, 232, 233, 234, 235 will be generated as a result of widget 210 execution. This is true even if more than one condition is met due to overlapping ranges. When ranges for a case widget overlap, only the first condition in the list to be satisfied will cause an output. First, in this case, would be represented by going from top to bottom among the outputs 231, 232, 234, 234, 235. Because case widget outputs behave identically to conditional widget outputs, they can be used to trigger other widgets via their control input pins in the same manner described above for the conditional widget. The interface preferably prevents the user from connecting different inputs of a downstream widget to signals that are directly or indirectly connected to different output pins of either a conditional or a case widget within the WEM window. This is because, since only one such pin can be triggered by definition, any downstream widget that relies on more than one such widget output, will by definition never execute. This condition is normally enforced by the block structure of standard programming languages but since, in a visual environment, this structure may not be so apparent, block structuring is preferably enforced by the WEM environment. In the visual environment, the outputs of a case widget may be automatically labeled with the case value. This feature is depicted in the diagram above with respect to outputs 231, 232, 233, 234, 235. The WEM interface is also capable of highlighting all widgets and connections that are `downstream` of a given selection in the WEM diagram by special UI actions).
The Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination describes features related to monitoring user interactions with an application interface. Fairweather is directed to a method and system for managing workflows. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data analysis systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination with Fairweather because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data analysis, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for monitoring and collecting multi-interface workflow interaction), and because modifying the Lekas-Kim-Jayapathi combination to include Fairweather’s feature for including wherein the facilitating of the performance of the step in the subsequent workflow further comprises: emphasizing, within the GUI, a widget representing the step and usable to receive a selection of the step, wherein the emphasizing of the widget within the GUI comprises at least one of enlarging the widget in the GUI, highlighting the widget in the GUI, or displaying the widget in a different location of the GUI, different than a previous location of the GUI, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of taking additional measures to make better use of the available space and to improve the appearance of the user interface (Fairweather at paragraph 00); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poysa et al., Pub. No.: US 2013/0335792 A1 – describes methods that provide and detect errors in scanning workflows.
Wheeler et al., Patent No.: US 8,819,701 B2 – describes a cloud computing monitoring and management system. Further describes an application that includes instrumentation that may identify and capture certain conditions, data, errors, performance metrics, or other events or information.
Jaros et al, Pub. No.: US 2024/0079086 A1 – describes that an indication of an error may be displayed on user interface.
Louch, Pub. No.: US 2010/0088635 A1 – describes methods of manipulating a screen space of a display device.
Chen, Tseng‐Yi, et al. "An effective monitoring framework and user interface design." Software: practice and experience 45.4 (2015): 549-570 – describes that a monitoring service is crucial because it ensures a high-quality computing environment and a reliable service.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights