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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Claim Objections
As per claim 10, delete “in response to detection that each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies the set of qualification rules” recited in ll. 10-11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in this Office action because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
The primary reason for allowance for independent claims 1 and 10 is acquire/acquiring a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process; when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute/executing one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block; generate/generating a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome using the second atomic deterministic next action task block out of the pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules; store/storing breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked; invoke/invoking the second atomic deterministic next action task block; and pass/passing the second set of input parameters to the second atomic deterministic next action task block in conjunction with the rest of the limitations set forth in the claim.
The primary reason for allowance for independent claim 19 is acquire a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process; when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block; generate a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules; and store breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked in conjunction with the rest of the limitations set forth in the claim.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are allowed because they are dependent upon one of the independent claims mentioned above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter: Claim 1. A system, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
an atomic deterministic next action task block (ADNA) manager for orchestrating execution of network processes; and
one or more processors configured to:
acquire a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process (abstract idea mental process);
when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block;
generate a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome using the second atomic deterministic next action task block out of the pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules;
store breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked;
invoke the second atomic deterministic next action task block; and
pass the second set of input parameters to the second atomic deterministic next action task block.
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
an atomic deterministic next action task block (ADNA) manager for orchestrating execution of network processes (generic computing components); and
one or more processors (generic computing components) configured to:
acquire a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process;
when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block;
generate a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome using the second atomic deterministic next action task block out of the pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules;
store breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer (generic computing components) prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked;
invoke the second atomic deterministic next action task block; and
pass the second set of input parameters to the second atomic deterministic next action task block.
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
an atomic deterministic next action task block (ADNA) manager for orchestrating execution of network processes; and
one or more processors configured to:
acquire a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process;
when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea);
generate a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome using the second atomic deterministic next action task block out of the pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules (extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
store breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information);
invoke the second atomic deterministic next action task block (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
pass the second set of input parameters to the second atomic deterministic next action task block (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the atomic deterministic next action task block manager adds atomic deterministic next action task blocks, removes atomic deterministic next action task blocks, updates atomic deterministic next action task blocks, updates a next action table, or adds a new workflow rule to the one or more workflow rules (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks comprises a pool of more than a thousand different atomic deterministic next action task blocks that are managed by the atomic deterministic next action task block manager (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of input parameters is acquired from a lookup table corresponding with the workflow process (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of qualification rules specifies datatypes and value ranges for each input parameter of the set of input parameters (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block comprises an output value derived from the one or more workflow rules (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the second set of input parameters comprises input values that are passed during invocation of the second atomic deterministic next action task block (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the breadcrumb information includes an identification of the first atomic deterministic next action task block as an invoker atomic deterministic next action task block, an identification of the second atomic deterministic next action task block as a next action atomic deterministic next action task block, a transaction timestamp for the first atomic deterministic next action task block invoking the second atomic deterministic next action task block, the set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block, and the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the next atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked is hosted at one or more of a container, a server, or a virtual machine (generic computing components).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter: Claim 19. A system, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
an atomic deterministic next action task block (ADNA) manager for orchestrating execution of network processes; and
one or more processors configured to:
acquire a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process (abstract idea mental process);
when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block;
generate a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules; and
store breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked.
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
an atomic deterministic next action task block (ADNA) manager for orchestrating execution of network processes (generic computing components); and
one or more processors (generic computing components) configured to:
acquire a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process;
when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block;
generate a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules; and
store breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer (generic computing components) prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked.
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
an atomic deterministic next action task block (ADNA) manager for orchestrating execution of network processes; and
one or more processors configured to:
acquire a set of input parameters for the first atomic deterministic next action task block using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process;
when each input parameter of the set of input parameters satisfies a set of qualification rules, execute one or more workflow rules for the first atomic deterministic next action task block (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea);
generate a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome, wherein the function outcome for the first atomic deterministic next action task block is based on the one or more workflow rules (extra-solution activity of generating data/information); and
store breadcrumb information for the first atomic deterministic next action task block within a persistence layer prior to the second atomic deterministic next action task block being invoked (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 20. The system of claim 19, wherein the atomic deterministic next action task block manager adds atomic deterministic next action task blocks, removes atomic deterministic next action task blocks, updates atomic deterministic next action task blocks, updates a next action table, or adds a new workflow rule to the one or more workflow rules (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Response to Amendment
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed 12/31/2025 introduces new matter into the claims. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
As per claims 1 and 10, “using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process” and “generate/generating a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome using the second atomic deterministic next action task block out of the pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks”. More specifically, only [0098]-[0099] of the instant specification recite “identify(ing) a first atomic deterministic next action task block out of a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks”. However, “selecting” a first atomic deterministic next action task block is different than “identifying” a first atomic deterministic next action task block. Furthermore, the original disclosure only supports the statement “generate/generating a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome” but does not support “generate/generating a second set of input parameters for a second atomic deterministic next action task block based on a function outcome using the second atomic deterministic next action task block out of the pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks” as currently claimed. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
As per claim 19, “using a previously selected first atomic deterministic next action task block from a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks associated with a workflow process”. More specifically, only [0098]-[0099] of the instant specification recite “identify(ing) a first atomic deterministic next action task block out of a pool of atomic deterministic next action task blocks”. However, “selecting” a first atomic deterministic next action task block is different than “identifying” a first atomic deterministic next action task block. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 9-10, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any abstract idea limitations. The examiner respectfully traverses. Although the previously-recited “identify, using the …”, “in response to detection…”, “determine a function outcome…”, and “identify a second…” limitations were removed/amended by Applicant, the amendments introduce new abstract idea limitations. More specifically, the recited “acquire a set…” limitation can be interpreted as a mental process because it is performed using a previously selected first atomic deterministic action task block. Making a selection of one or more options from a group of options can be performed mentally. Furthermore, the instant specification provides an example equating acquiring the input parameter to determining the input parameter which can be performed mentally (e.g., see [0030] “acquire or determine an updated input parameter”). Furthermore, none of the dependent claims containing abstract idea limitations were amended to remove the above-identified abstract idea limitations. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Hernandez Rincon et al. (US 2021/0081838) in at least [0017] disclose an atomic function and a set of defined rules that include activities that occur in a workflow process.
Kowalkiewicz et al. (US 2009/0150900) in at least [0029] disclose specifying workflow rules for each atomic task.
Wilcock et al. (US 2012/0016713) in at least [0043] disclose atomic tasks that can be rules and creating a workflow including selecting the rules.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 January 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights