DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) under 35 USC 102, to Alabdrabalnabi, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. The applicant had alleged that Alabdrabalnabi does not teach receiving a status trigger from one of the plurality of computing instances. However, in Alabdrabalnabi paragraphs 0018 makes clear that work object data, being read on status triggers, are received, to create workflows in a network.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, to teach the new element of: wherein the status trigger is one of a plurality of status triggers, and wherein the plurality of status triggers comprises at least one of a restart status trigger, a memory status trigger, or a processing power status trigger (see rejection below).
Claim Rejection Notes
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alabdrabalnabi et al. (US 20230297962 A1, published: 9/21/2023), in view of Vitner et al. (US 20210116386 A1, published: 4/22/2021).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended): Alabdrabalnabi teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a configuration specification, wherein the configuration specification is associated with a plurality of computing instances (the technological solution includes a system for coordinating and managing workflow processes in parallel among a plurality of approval applications executing on machines within an enterprise network [Alabdrabalnabi, 0013]. The system can comprise a trigger interface generated programmatically by the system [Alabdrabalnabi, 0014]);
receiving a status trigger from one of the plurality of computing instances, wherein the status trigger is one of a plurality of status triggers (the technological solution includes a system for coordinating and managing workflow processes in parallel among a plurality of approval applications executing on machines within an enterprise network [Alabdrabalnabi, 0013]. The received request can include work object data, including data and configuration information, that can be used to create the work object request and trigger needed approval workflows in the network 1 [Alabdrabalnabi, 0118]);
parsing the configuration specification to determine that the status trigger was received from a first computing instance of the plurality of computing instances; parsing the configuration specification to determine a first interface component of a plurality of interface components associated with the plurality of status trigger, wherein the first interface component is associated with the status trigger (the PAE system 2 can be configured to apply at respective approval engines 251, 25i (or, e.g., any application engine in the suite of application engines 250, shown in FIG. 5) a set of approval rules to the approval workflow process to determine a workflow process’s approval status as either approved or rejected [Alabdrabalnabi, 0048]. Handling all reviewer determinations during approval workflow processes; handling financial and non-financial approval processes; providing timely and relevant notifications, such as, emails indicating arrival, escalation, reminders, and status updates for each work object request [Alabdrabalnabi, 0059]. a node determination rules (NDR) [Alabdrabalnabi, 0100]. The workflow approval policies can include governance rules or governance business rules that can be applied to dynamically evaluate or reevaluate approval steps or to run through one or more node determination rules against a workflow approval route. The workflow approval policies and associated data can include, for example, business process policy and configuration rules that can be employed by the approval engine in creating, configuring, modifying, monitoring, reporting or implementing the approval workflow process route [Alabdrabalnabi, 0102]);
causing a user interface to be displayed, the user interface comprising the plurality of interface components; and causing the first interface component of the plurality of interface components to be updated based at least in part on the status trigger (the data packets can be parsed by, for example, the requester computing resource into data and instruction signals to generate and display a graphic user interface (GUI) on a display device (not shown) at the node N43, which can include a display of the flowchart or other GUI image [Alabdrabalnabi, 0056]. The approval node portion can include one or more tags that can be checked to determine whether a particular destination node is to receive notices (e.g., periodic updates) related to the work object request [Alabdrabalnabi, 0073]).
Alabdrabalnabi does not teach wherein the status trigger is one of a plurality of status triggers, and wherein the plurality of status triggers comprises at least one of a restart status trigger, a memory status trigger, or a processing power status trigger.
However, Vitner teaches wherein the status trigger is one of a plurality of status triggers, and wherein the plurality of status triggers comprises at least one of a restart status trigger, a memory status trigger, or a processing power status trigger (the alert generator (1934) generates an alert (1940) based on the analysis data (1938). The analysis data (1938) includes one or more process recommendations, error probabilities, and failure mode analysis [Vitner, 0164]. The alerts are created in response to the analysis data (1938) based on a set of rules. In one or more embodiments, the rules specify: a set of process recommendations that when provided will trigger an alert, a range of error probabilities that when exceeded trigger an alert, and a set of failure mode analyses that when provided will trigger an alert [Vitner, 0176]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface with computer status display invention of Alabdrabalnabi to include the status trigger features of Vitner.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to expand the capabilities of the prior art by including status alerts for more circumstances, to present a more comprehensive status alert interface to users.
Claims 11 and 20, having similar elements to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 2: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the plurality of interface components are arranged on the user interface in a first interface configuration of a plurality of interface configurations (Each AE 251, 25i can include a reviewer interface (not shown) comprising a graphic user interface (GUI) that can be presented at a communicating device (not shown) at a node N in the network 1 to allow a reviewing user to review and implement a decision with respect to each of one or more work object requests received from one or more source nodes, such as, for example, the requester computing resource located at node N43 [Alabdrabalnabi, 0047]. The data packets can be parsed by, for example, the requester computing resource into data and instruction signals to generate and display a graphic user interface (GUI) on a display device (not shown) at the node N43, which can include a display of the flowchart or other GUI image [Alabdrabalnabi, 0056]).
Claim 12, having similar elements to claim 2, is likewise rejected.
Claim 3: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the first interface configuration is based at least in part on a user type (the approval workflow process can be created based on enterprises polices or rules relating to the position, access or authorization rights or privileges, organizational structure, business rules, business needs, or any other rules or policies relating to the enterprise or network user for whom the work object request was generated [Alabdrabalnabi, 0060]).
Claim 13, having similar elements to claim 3, is likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the first interface configuration is based at least in part on the first computing instance (the approval workflow process can be created based on enterprises polices or rules relating to the position, access or authorization rights or privileges, organizational structure, business rules, business needs, or any other rules or policies relating to the enterprise or network user for whom the work object request was generated. A routing table can be generated for the approval workflow process, including each node as a hop through which the work object request must pass with approval in order for the work object request to be approved and the approval workflow process to be completed [Alabdrabalnabi, 0060]).
Claim 14, having similar elements to claim 4, is likewise rejected.
Claim 5: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the plurality of computing instances comprises at least one of a reconditioning computing instance, an import computing instance, a product quality review computing instance, a group print computing instance, an insights computing instance, a machine learning computing instance, or a fabric computing instance (enterprise systems such as sourcing, engineering, manufacturing, manufacturing definitions, production, control, quality control, product configurations, personnel, accounting, sales, billing, marketing, or project management [Alabdrabalnabi, 0107]).
Claim 15, having similar elements to claim 5, is likewise rejected.
Claim 6: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the plurality of status triggers comprises at least one of a restart status trigger, a memory status trigger, a processing power status trigger, a workflow request status trigger, a workflow success status trigger, a workflow failure status trigger, or a workflow time status trigger (applying at respective approval applications a set of approval rules to the workflow to determine a workflow’s approval status as either approved or rejected [Alabdrabalnabi, 0005]).
Claim 16, having similar elements to claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim 7: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the plurality of interface components comprises at least one of a restart interface component, a memory interface component, a processing power interface component, a workflow request interface component, a workflow success interface component, a workflow failure interface component, or a workflow time interface component (a GUI that displays a work object request, the status of the work object request, an approval workflow process, or the status of the approval workflow process [Alabdrabalnabi, 0109]).
Claim 17, having similar elements to claim 7, is likewise rejected.
Claim 8: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches further comprising: determining that the first computing instance of the plurality of computing instances has been updated; and generating an updated configuration specification based at least in part on the determination that the first computing instance has been updated (the approval engine(s) 251 to 25i, alone or in communication with the PAE processor 260, can create, configure, define, modify, update, monitor, implement or report approval workflow processes, workflow approval scenarios or workflow approval schemas [Alabdrabalnabi, 0109]).
Claim 18, having similar elements to claim 8, is likewise rejected.
Claim 9: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the first interface component is updated in real-time (the workflow approval routes and associated data in the RR database can be updated continuously or periodically, in real-time, thereby ensuring provisioning of a current, complete and optimal workflow approval route for each work object request in the network 1 [Alabdrabalnabi, 0107]).
Claim 19, having similar elements to claim 9, is likewise rejected.
Claim 10: The combination of Alabdrabalnabi and Vitner, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Alabdrabalnabi further teaches wherein the configuration specification identifies one or more workflows performed by the first computing instance of the plurality of computing instances (applying at respective approval applications a set of approval rules to the workflow to determine a workflow’s approval status as either approved or rejected; returning the workflow’s approval status to the initiating application via the central location; performing one or more follow-up distributions of workflows from the central location until either all approval applications indicate a status of approved or the number of follow-up distributions reaches a pre-defined maximum number of follow-up distributions [Alabdrabalnabi, 0030]).
Claim 20, having similar elements to claim 10, is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172