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 .
Detail Action
On 08/10/2023, Application 18/232,503 is filed with claims 1-11.
That is Non-Final Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/ mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the step of:
assessing technical quality of the workflow system's resource usage depending on the measured effect compared with at least one predefined requirement and/or brought about workflow simulation,
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A recommender system..), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
gathering data concerning resource usage in the workflow system caused by the user interface controlling unit by the user interaction, - measuring the effect of the user interaction regarding resource usage in the workflows system, whereby underlying command of the user interaction controls current work step in the workflow system and/or initiates the subsequent work step in the workflow system, … outputting one least one recommendation for improving implementation of the workflow presentation which leads to a recommended redesign and/or reconfiguration of the at least one user interface controlling unit, whereby the at least one recommendation is derived from the gathered data and from the assessed technical quality.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
the gathered data also concern data of further resource usage within the distributed system.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
a machine learning system connected to the recommender system which can be fed via the gathered data and via the assessed technical quality in order to conclude/predict behaviour of the workflow system and to provide configuration data for redesigning and/or reconfiguring of the at least one user interface controlling unit which fits to the concluded behaviour.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
wherein the measured effect can additionally be voted by the user and such voting can be considered along with the assessed technical quality..
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites the step of:
depending on measured effect of the user interaction regarding resource usage in the workflows system and/or within the multi user system compared with at least one predefined requirement and/or brought about workflow simulation.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A user interface configuration system), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
redesigning and/or reconfiguring of at least one user interface controlling unit for a multi-user system, which is configured to receive at least one recommendation for improving implementation of a workflow presentation, whereby the at least one recommendation is transformed into redesign and/or reconfiguration of the at least one user interface controlling unit, whereby the at least one recommendation is derived from gathered data concerning resource usage in the workflow system and/or within the multi user system and from assessed technical quality of the workflow system's resource usage and/or of the multi user system…
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 5.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 5 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
wherein redesign and/or refiguration which can be incorporated into a deployment package for the user interface comprising the at least one user interface controlling unit.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
the recommender system according to claim 1 and the user interface configuration system which interact with each other.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 1 and 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8, 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
wherein the user interface provides feedback by user interaction to the recommender system regarding the recommended redesign and/or reconfiguration.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 9-10 are directed to a method comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the system of claims 1-2 are configured to perform. Claims 9-10 recite the same limitations as claims 1-2, respectively; therefore, claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-2. See above.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 11 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of:
cause the one or more processors to carry out the steps of the method..
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 9, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu US Publication 2021/0133239 in view of Hansmann US Publication 2010/0058313.
18/232,503
Brochu US Publication 2021/0133239 in view of Hansmann US Publication 2010/0058313
Claim 1
A recommender system suitable for computer-implemented recommending improvements for at least one user interface controlling unit connected with a workflow system within a multi-user system during user interaction or directly after user interaction, which is configured to:
Brochu abstract.
- gathering data concerning resource usage in the workflow system caused by the user interface controlling unit by the user interaction,
- measuring the effect of the user interaction regarding resource usage in the workflows system, whereby underlying command of the user interaction controls current work step in the workflow system and/or initiates the subsequent work step in the workflow system,
Brochu teaches monitoring user interaction with recommended visualization; see Brochu p0094-p0112.
Brochu teaches collecting measuring data from user; see Brochu p0081-p137.
- assessing technical quality of the workflow system's resource usage depending on the measured effect compared with at least one predefined requirement and/or brought about workflow simulation,
Hanasmann teaches comparing data with information about of available changes and know problem. (see Hanasmann fig. 2 p0027-p0032)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Hanasmann’s teaching with method of Brochu in order to avoid previous issues.
- outputting one least one recommendation for improving implementation of the workflow presentation which leads to a recommended redesign and/or reconfiguration of the at least one user interface controlling unit, whereby the at least one recommendation is derived from the gathered data and from the assessed technical quality.
See Brochu p0102-p0110;
Claim 2
The recommender system according to claim 1, wherein the gathered data also concern data of further resource usage within the distributed system.
Brochu p0051;
Hansmann p0017, p0032-p0037;
Claim 3
The recommender system according to claim 1, wherein a machine learning system connected to the recommender system which can be fed via the gathered data and via the assessed technical quality in order to conclude/predict behavior of the workflow system and to provide configuration data for redesigning and/or reconfiguring of the at least one user interface controlling unit which fits to the concluded behavior.
Brochu p0019-p0030
Clam 5
A user interface configuration system (authoring system) for redesigning and/or reconfiguring of at least one user interface controlling unit for a multi-user system:
Brochu p0019-p0030
which is configured to receive at least one recommendation for improving implementation of a workflow presentation, whereby the at least one recommendation is transformed into redesign and/or reconfiguration of the at least one user interface controlling unit,
Brochu p0081-p0137
whereby the at least one recommendation is derived from gathered data concerning resource usage in the workflow system and/or within the multi user system and from assessed technical quality of the workflow system's resource usage and/or of the multi user system depending on measured effect of the user interaction regarding resource usage in the workflows system and/or within the multi user system compared with at least one predefined requirement and/or brought about workflow simulation.
Hanasmann teaches comparing data with information about of available changes and know problem. (see Hanasmann fig. 2 p0027-p0032)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Hanasmann’s teaching with method of Brochu.
Claim 6
The user interface configuration system according to claim 5, wherein redesign and/or refiguration which can be incorporated into a deployment package for the user interface comprising the at least one user interface controlling unit.
Brochu p0019-p0030
Claim 7
A multi user system comprising the recommender system according to claim 1 and the user interface configuration system which interact with each other.
Brochu p0019-p0030; p0081-p0137;
As per claims 9 and 10, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 2. See rejection above
18/232,503
Brochu US Publication 2021/0133239 in view of Hansmann US Publication 2010/0058313
Claim 11
A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by one or more processors of the multi user system preferably according to claim 9, cause the one or more processors to carry out the steps of the method.
Brochu p0029.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu US Publication 2021/0133239 in view of Hansmann US Publication 2010/0058313 and Souche US 2020/0110647.
18/232,503
Brochu US Publication 2021/0133239 in view of Hansmann US Publication 2010/0058313 and Souche US 2020/0110647.
Claim 4
The recommender system according to claim 1, wherein the measured effect can additionally be voted by the user and such voting can be considered along with the assessed technical quality.
Souche teaches applied user feedback to recommendation. (see Souche p0026, p0036-p0037)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Souche’s teaching with method of Brochu in order to provide the best solution based on user feedback.
As per claim 8, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Here is a list of references relates to machines learning:
Rugel US Patent 10140199: Data Processing System With Machine Learning Engine To Provide Output Generating Functions
Dolan US Publication 2016/0063993: Facet recommendation from Sentiment-bearing content
Coffing US Patent 11/429794: System For Providing Dialogue Guidance
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194