DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the patent application filed 26 May 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
[3] Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to systems and a method and are accordingly understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 8, and 15 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 15, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of selecting a service by an organizer of an event and identifying and coordinating/performing actions associated with the service for the event, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed identifies a plurality of actions to be performed for an event/service and directs the performance of the actions in a defined sequence or order, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and following rules or instructions such as instructions and communications to perform a series of actions).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 15. In particular, claim 15 includes:
“…managing event scheduling…comprising: providing…a service selected for an organizer event; identifying a plurality of actions associated with the service; providing…the plurality of actions; and…perform the plurality of actions in sequence…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 15 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of selecting a service by an organizer of an event and identifying and coordinating/performing actions associated with the service for the event, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and following rules or instructions such as instructions and communications to perform a series of actions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 15 recites:
“…identifying a plurality of actions associated with the service…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processor, instructions, and/or state machines, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that determining or identifying actions required for an event/service and further identifying data or information required to perform an the desired actions are practicable/performable by a human employing by the human mental processing, e.g., observations and planning (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 15 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “service state machine” and “action state machine”. Claims 1 and 8 are directed to systems introduce a “processor” and processor-executable “computer program” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “processor” and “computer program” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “service state machine” is identified as being selected and provided and controlling in a general manner the “action state machine(s)” to perform the actions associated with the service. Claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5, 11-13, and 17-19 indicate that the “action state machine(s)” receive settings communicated by the “service state machined” and associated with a state to perform the actions associated with the service.
(3) The “action state machine(s)” is/are identified as being directed/controlled in an unspecified manner to perform actions associated with the service. Claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5, 11-13, and 17-19 indicate that the “action state machine(s)” receive settings associated with a state to perform the actions associated with the service.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: (1) There are no additional elements in the claim; (2) 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); (3) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or (4) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., a service is selected/provided, actions are identified, actions are performed in a defined order or sequence etc.) as associated with a respective “processor/instruction” or “state machine”. Beyond the general statement that the state machines, processor, and program are generally engaged with the recited action performance, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the recited technical elements in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a processor” or “by a state machine”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., actions, services, notifications, settings, and authorizations); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., services/state machines); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., identifying actions and data required to perform the actions) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 15 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of selecting a service by an organizer of an event and identifying and coordinating/performing actions associated with the service for the event using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed selecting a service by an organizer of an event and identifying and coordinating/performing actions associated with the service for the event benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0031] and [0056]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “processor” and “computer program” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “service state machine” is identified as being selected and provided and controlling in a general manner the “action state machine(s)” to perform the actions associated with the service. Claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5, 11-13, and 17-19 indicate that the “action state machine(s)” receive settings communicated by the “service state machined” and associated with a state to perform the actions associated with the service.
(3) The “action state machine(s)” is/are identified as being directed/controlled in an unspecified manner to perform actions associated with the service. Claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5, 11-13, and 17-19 indicate that the “action state machine(s)” receive settings associated with a state to perform the actions associated with the service.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., actions, services, notifications, settings, and authorizations); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., services/state machines); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., identifying actions and data required to perform the actions) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of selecting a service by an organizer of an event and identifying and coordinating/performing actions associated with the service for the event. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., selecting a service by an organizer of an event and identifying and coordinating/performing actions associated with the service for the event, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of selecting a service by an organizer of an event and identifying and coordinating/performing actions associated with the service for the event benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information 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); 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 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 1 and 8 are directed to apparatus/systems including computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
[4] Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goode et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0189096 hereinafter ‘Goode’) in view of Shalev et al. (United States Patent No. 8,930,965 hereinafter ‘Shalev’)
With respect to claim 1, Goode discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for execution by the processor for managing event scheduling (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0015] [0016]; See at least one or more processors and executable instructions to implement a state-machine based task and event processing/workflow), the computer program including instructions for: providing a service state machine for a service selected by an organizer for an organizer event (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] [0034]-[0035]; See at least repository of selectable state machines associated with defined processes e.g., modelling control systems, coordinating logistics operations, manufacturing processes. The defined processes implemented by the state machines are reasonably forms of “services”); setting, by the service state machine, a state of each action state machine of a plurality of action state machines associated with a plurality of actions associated with the service to an active state (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0016] [0018] [0023] [0025]; See at least state machine engine applied to a plurality of selectable state machines, each state machine having defined tasks associated with states of the state machine), the setting the state causing the action state machine to perform elements associated with a respective action associated with the respective action state machine while the state of the respective action machine is active (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0018] [0023] [0025] [0050]; See at least states of state machines are associated with tasks to be performed in that state. See further state transitions performed when tasks associated with a current state are complete), wherein each action of the plurality of actions is identified by a provider prior to the service state machine being provided (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0025] [0034]-[0036] [0041]-[0044]; See at least select and edit tasks and agents to perform tasks by selected or newly created state machine), wherein at least one action has an element that comprises receiving an action performance indication from the organizer (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0025] [0031] [0035] [0049]; See at least state machine defined by input of tasks, assignment or responsible agents for tasks, designations of skippable or non-skippable assigned to tasks, and completion determinations for tasks); and setting a state of the service state machine to a ready-to-deliver state after each action state machine of the plurality of action state machines completes performance of associated elements (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0024]-[0025] [0027] [0044]-[0045]; See at least defined sets of tasks required for state transitions. See further state machine in a defined starting or initialized state, i.e., a “ready-to-deliver” state).
With respect to the recitation of the service state machine setting states of action state machines, Goode discloses functionality to define tasks, agents, states and state transitions for newly created or selected state machines from a plurality of state machines use a state machine engine. This functionality is reasonably a step/function of setting states for state machines including tasks associated with states and requirements for state transitions.
While Goode discloses a plurality of selectable state machines and setting of state machine-associated actions/tasks including an ordering of tasks, Goode fails to expressly state that states of each action state machine are set to an order of the plurality of actions.
However, as evidenced by Shalev, it is well-known in the art to control states of multiple state machines that are controlled in sequence or in a defined order responsive to determined events associated with a service or process. Specifically, Shalev further discloses “…wherein the service state machine sets the state of each action state machine according to an order of the plurality of actions…” (Shalev et al.; col. 3, lines 60-67, col. 4, lines 42-65, col. 5, lines 24-30, and col. 6, lines 43-63; See at least sequencer invokes orders/sequences of state machines each to perform tasks responsive to detected triggering events in a process. See further sequencer sets state, e.g., activated or deactivated, for each state machine in sequence according to a defined order/sequence of tasks. NOTE: the sequencer is responsive to detected states and implements the sequences of sub-state machines responsive to detected states or conditions associated with s defined process and is therefore reasonably a form of “service state machine”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the plurality of selectable state machines and associated state transitions of Goode by further including ordered or sequential activation of multiple state machines to execute specified tasks in response to defined triggering events as taught by Shalev. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of using process-specific state machines to orchestrate and perform tasks associated with a specified process/service. As Goode discloses the use of a plurality of selectable state machines and associated state transitions in the context of a system and method for using process-specific state machines to orchestrate and perform tasks associated with a specified process/service and Shalev similarly discloses the utility of ordered or sequential activation of multiple state machines to execute specified tasks in response to defined triggering events in the context of a system and method for using process-specific state machines to orchestrate and perform tasks associated with a specified process/service, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of improving process efficiency and flexibility by dynamically combining state machine functions to adapt executed processes to a large number of defined events.
With respect to claim 2, Goode discloses a system wherein the computer program further includes instructions for: receiving, from a provider, data for creating the service (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0025] [0031] [0035] [0049]; See at least state machine defined by input of tasks, assignment or responsible agents for tasks, designations of skippable or non-skippable assigned to tasks, and completion determinations for tasks); and receiving, from the provider, data indicating an association between the service and at least one action of the plurality of actions (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0025]-[0026] [0038] [0046]; See at least inputs to associate tasks with state machine/service sequence).
With respect to claim 3, Goode discloses a system wherein the computer program further includes instructions for: receiving a service start authorization indicating that the service state machine is authorized to start (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0018] [0044]-[0046]; See at least setting state of state machine to starting state, i.e., active state. See further, tasks associated with state performed when triggered by preconditions being met, i.e., authorized to start); and setting a state of the service state machine to active in response to receiving the service start authorization (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0018] [0044]-[0046]; See at least setting state of state machine to starting state, i.e., active state. See further, tasks associated with state performed when triggered by preconditions being met, i.e., authorized to start).
With respect to claim 4, Goode discloses a system wherein the instructions for setting the state of each action state machine of a plurality of action state machines include instructions for: identifying a current action from the plurality of actions; setting a state of a current action state machine associated with the current action to active (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0016] [0018] [0023] [0025]; See at least state machine engine applied to a plurality of selectable state machines, each state machine having defined tasks associated with states of the state machine); and performing elements associated with the current action while the state of the current action is active (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0018] [0023] [0025] [0050]; See at least states of state machines are associated with tasks to be performed in that state. See further state transitions performed when tasks associated with a current state are complete).
With respect to claim 5, Goode discloses a system wherein the instructions for performing the elements associated with the current action include instructions for: receiving an action performance indication at the current action state machine (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0038] [0049]-[0051] [0056]; See at least receiving task completion indications associated with a state machine state); setting the state of the current action state machine to a ready-to-deliver state in response to the action performance indication (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0038] [0049]-[0051]; See at least state transition performed and state machine in a ready state to perform next task associated with the new state); determining, according to the order of the plurality of actions, whether a next action exists in the plurality of actions (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least determining next state and associated tasks. This is reasonably a determination as to whether all tasks are complete for the state); performing, in response to determining that the next action exists: determining the next action to be the current action (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0018] [0023] [0025] [0050]; See at least states of state machines are associated with tasks to be performed in that state. See further state transitions performed when tasks associated with a current state are complete); and performing elements associated with the current action while the state of the current action is active (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least determining next state and performing associated tasks); and performing, in response to not determining that the next action exists: setting the state of the service state machine to a ready-to-deliver state (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0038] [0049]-[0051]; See at least state transition performed and state machine in a ready state to perform next task associated with the new state).
While Goode discloses transitioning the state machine to a new state based on meeting completion criteria for the prior state, as noted above, Goode fails to disclose sequentially placing different state machines in an active or deactivated state to perform tasks.
However, as evidenced by Shalev, it is well-known in the art to control states of multiple state machines that are controlled in sequence or in a defined order responsive to determined events associated with a service or process. Specifically, Shalev further discloses “…setting the state of a current action state machine associated with the current action to active…” (Shalev et al.; col. 3, lines 60-67, col. 4, lines 42-65, col. 5, lines 24-30, and col. 6, lines 43-63; See at least sequencer invokes orders/sequences of state machines each to perform tasks responsive to detected triggering events in a process. See further sequencer sets state, e.g., activated or deactivated, for each state machine in sequence according to a defined order/sequence of tasks. NOTE: the sequencer is responsive to detected states and implements the sequences of sub-state machines responsive to detected states or conditions associated with s defined process and is therefore reasonably a form of “service state machine”).
Regarding claim 5, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 5 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 6, Goode discloses a system wherein at least one action of the plurality of actions has an element that comprises: providing, to a responsible party associated with the respective action, prompt data indicating to the responsible party to provide the action performance indication indicating that an action has been performed (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0038] [0042] [0049]; See at least generation of UI for performing task to agent. See also, activation of completion button to direct completion when supervisory completion of the task is required).
With respect to claim 7, Goode discloses a system wherein at least one action of the plurality of actions has an element that comprises: providing, to a responsible party associated with the respective action, according to a deadline associated with the respective at least one action, a reminder to the responsible party to provide data regarding the respective action (Goode et al.; paragraphs [0038] [0049] [0056]; See at least generation of UI for performing task to agent. See also prompting of user to mark tasks complete in accordance with timeline, i.e., the timeline is a form of deadline and the generation of the UI and complete button is reasonably a form of “reminder”).
Independent claims 8 and 15 differ from claim 1 with respect to the setting of the action state machines according to an order of actions to more broadly recite “…controlling, by the service state machine, running of the at least one action state machine to perform the plurality of actions in sequence…”. The control activation and deactivation of state machine in sequence of Shalev is reasonably a form of “…controlling, by the service state machine, running of the at least one action state machine to perform the plurality of actions in sequence…” (Shalev et al.; col. 3, lines 60-67, col. 4, lines 42-65, col. 5, lines 24-30, and col. 6, lines 43-63; See at least sequencer sets state, e.g., activated or deactivated, for each state machine in sequence according to a defined order/sequence of tasks).
Claims 8-14 and 15-20 otherwise substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-7 as directed to performed method/process and an alternative iteration of the inventive system. With respect to these elements, both Goode and Shalev disclose performance of the method/process steps employing the enabling systems and executable instructions. Accordingly, claims 8-14 and 15-20 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-7.
Conclusion
[5] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited NON-PATENT Literature:
Kufner et al., Restful State Machines and SQL Database, 2019-01-01, IEEE Access (Volume: 7, 2019, Page(s): 144603-144617: Relevant Teachings: Kufner discloses a system/method that provides small database state machines in a business process execution context. The publication establishes at least that the use of individualized state machines as component elements of a business execution process is common practice in the art.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Parks et al., FINITE STATE MACHINES FOR IMPLEMENTING WORKFLOWS FOR DATA OBJECTS MANAGED BY A DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0234242, paragraphs [0177]-[0181]: Relevant Teachings: Parks discloses a system/method that provides for the execution of defined workflows using finite state machines. The inventive system enables a designation of primary and secondary state machines to perform sets of tasks.
O’Reilly, Jr. et al., TECHNIQUES FOR COMMAND EXECUTION USING A STATE MACHINE, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0083371, paragraphs [0052]-[0055]: Relevant Teachings: O’Reilly discloses a system/method that provides state machine executed workflows and further includes tracking of SM performed actions based on a designated current or active task and current state of the state machine.
Gray et al., FINITE STATE MACHINE DRIVEN WORKFLOWS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0019192, paragraphs [0018]-[0024]: Relevant Teachings: Gray discloses a system/method that provides designation of a plurality of state machines to perform tasks associated with a workflow and further includes adjusting the state of a finite state machine based on position in the workflow and sequencing of tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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 V Boswell can be reached at 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 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights