Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on November 26, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is illustrative of the all independent claims and analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for generating a workflow. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method for generating a workflow by performing KPI prediction of synthesized policy. The claim recites the steps of: generating a plurality of candidate workflows by making a modification to at least one of a plurality of element of an existing workflow having a hierarchical structure…; inputting information of a state and information of following contents of each of the plurality of candidate workflows into KPI predicting models…, calculating a KPI fluctuation vector by calculating a difference between a KPI predicted value of the existing workflow and each of the plurality of KPI predicted values of the candidate workflow, generating a plurality of synthesized policies by generating a plurality of combinations each containing two or more or the plurality oof KPI fluctuation vectors…, calculating KPI predicted value of each of the plurality of synthesized policies by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector…, confirming whether all the plurality of KPI predicted values satisfy respective corresponding KPI target values, and outputting a workflow of the plurality of synthesized policies the KPI predicted values of which satisfy the respective KPI target values by repeating, when at least one the plurality of KPI predicted values does not satisfy the corresponding KPI target value…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “inputting information of a state…into KPI predicting models prepared one for each of a plurality of types of KPI, the KPI predicting models outputting a plurality of KPI predicted values”, “calculating a KPI fluctuation vector by calculating a difference between a KPI predicted value of the existing workflow and each of the plurality of KPI predicted values of the candidate workflow”, “calculating a KPI predicted value by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector”, which are mathematical relationships and calculations, then it falls with the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of a computer comprising a processor and a storing device; “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device” and “storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device.”
The additional elements “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device” and “storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device” are mere data gathering and storing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and storing, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and storing. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, they just merely used as general means for gathering and storing data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the claim also recites that the steps of: storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device; storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device; generating a plurality of candidate workflows by making a modification…; inputting information of a state and information of following contents into KPI predicting models…, calculating a KPI fluctuation vector by calculating a difference between a KPI predicted value…, calculating KPI predicted value of each of the plurality of synthesized policies by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector…, confirming whether all the plurality of KPI predicted values satisfy respective corresponding KPI target values, and outputting a workflow of the plurality of synthesized policies the KPI predicted values, are performed by a computer comprising a processor and a storing device. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device; storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device”, the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations, “generating a plurality of candidate workflows by making a modification…; inputting information of a state and information of following contents into KPI predicting models…, calculating a KPI fluctuation vector by calculating a difference between a KPI predicted value…, calculating KPI predicted value of each of the plurality of synthesized policies by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector…, confirming whether all the plurality of KPI predicted values satisfy respective corresponding KPI target values, and outputting a workflow of the plurality of synthesized policies the KPI predicted values”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the computer comprising a processor and a storing device, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device” and “storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device”, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device” and “storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and storing data in a storing device and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the computer to perform limitations “generating a plurality of candidate workflows by making a modification…; inputting information of a state and information of following contents into KPI predicting models…, calculating a KPI fluctuation vector by calculating a difference between a KPI predicted value…, calculating KPI predicted value of each of the plurality of synthesized policies by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector…, confirming whether all the plurality of KPI predicted values satisfy respective corresponding KPI target values, and outputting a workflow of the plurality of synthesized policies the KPI predicted values…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claim 4, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 4 directed to a medium, is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6, have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 5, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the calculating of the plurality of KPI predicted values comprises summing the KPI predicted value of the existing workflow and a weighted KPI fluctional vector…, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 6, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the with parameter is set according to a flow depth indicating a depth of a hierarchy of each of the plurality of candidate elements…, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose the features of: calculating, when one of selected routes of the plurality of candidate workflows contains a plurality of the modifications, a KPI predicted value of each of the plurality of synthesized policies by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector, the weight parameter being set such that, among a plurality of elements each containing one of the plurality of modifications on the selected route, an element closer to a starting node in the hierarchical structure has a higher weight of the corresponding modification, recited in the independent claims 1 and 4.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong One: In response to the Applicant’s arguments the claims do not recite a Mental Process, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite a method for generating a workflow by performing KPI prediction of synthesized policy comprising the steps of: generating a plurality of candidate workflows by making a modification to at least one of a plurality of element of an existing workflow having a hierarchical structure…; inputting information of a state and information of following contents of each of the plurality of candidate workflows into KPI predicting models…, calculating a KPI fluctuation vector by calculating a difference between a KPI predicted value of the existing workflow and each of the plurality of KPI predicted values of the candidate workflow, generating a plurality of synthesized policies by generating a plurality of combinations each containing two or more or the plurality oof KPI fluctuation vectors…, calculating KPI predicted value of each of the plurality of synthesized policies by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector…, confirming whether all the plurality of KPI predicted values satisfy respective corresponding KPI target values, and outputting a workflow of the plurality of synthesized policies the KPI predicted values of which satisfy the respective KPI target values by repeating, when at least one the plurality of KPI predicted values does not satisfy the corresponding KPI target value…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claims recite a “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Moreover, the Applicant argues “the operations of “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device” and “storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device” cannot be performed mentally and require interaction with hardware”, the Examiner submits that these operations are additional elements and analyzing under Step 2A-Prong Two.
Step 2A-Prong Two: In response to the Applicant’s arguments the claims integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The additional elements “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device” and “storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device” are mere data gathering and storing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and storing, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and storing. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, they just merely used as general means for gathering and storing data.
The additional elements a computer comprising a processor and a storing device are at a high level of generality. In the limitations “storing the plurality of candidate workflows generated in the generating into the storing device; storing information of the KPI fluctuation vector into the storing device”, the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations, “generating a plurality of candidate workflows by making a modification…; inputting information of a state and information of following contents into KPI predicting models…, calculating a KPI fluctuation vector by calculating a difference between a KPI predicted value…, calculating KPI predicted value of each of the plurality of synthesized policies by reflecting a weight parameter on the KPI fluctuation vector…, confirming whether all the plurality of KPI predicted values satisfy respective corresponding KPI target values, and outputting a workflow of the plurality of synthesized policies the KPI predicted values”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In response to the Applicant’s arguments the claims recite an Inventive Concept, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that. while the Applicant stated “the combination of elements in claims 1 and 4 provides significantly more than the judicial exception, Thu use of KPI predicting models, hieratical weighting, and interactive synthesis of workflows contributes to a specific technical improvement in workflow generation and KPI prediction”, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of calculating a workflow and performing KPI prediction of synthesized policy, and repeating the steps until the plurality of KPI predicted values all satisfy the respective corresponding KPI targets, rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-6 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kurian et al. (US 2016/0371622) disclose a centralized workflow management system is described that provides for the ability to manage workflows existing throughout a large enterprise regardless of the format of the workflow platform/system providing the workflows.
Hall et al. (US 2013/0158964) disclose a method for providing a new workflow that reuses an existing workflow includes displaying one or more collections of existing workflows available for selection.
Hamadi et al. (US 2008/0183538) disclose using this workflow information together with policy information and information about resource characteristics, a constraint optimization problem is specified. This problem is solved using a constraint programming solver and the resulting information about resources allocated to tasks is stored. In this way, resources may be allocated to tasks in a dynamic manner, during execution of a workflow if required.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 January 6, 2026