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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The description (or lack thereof) of claim element “state” in paragraph [0069] of the original specification is verbatim to that disclosed in claims 1, 11, and 20. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, the claim element “state” has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2163(I)(A)). The scope and meaning of the claim element “state” is not clear as there is no disclosure of what is meant by the element “state”. One of ordinary skill in the art would require such a disclosure to understand that the Applicant had possession of the invention before filing.
With respect to the remaining dependent claims, they are rejected by virtue of inheriting the limitations of their parent/base claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 20, the term “near real time” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what temporal interval or threshold is considered “near real time”. The element “communication” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “near real time”
With respect to claims 4 and 14, “the dataset” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to the remaining dependent claims, they are rejected by virtue of inheriting the limitations of their parent/base claims.
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, 6, 8-11, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkley (US 6088679) in view of Ottenfelt et al. (US 2014/0280300).
With respect to claim 1, Barkely discloses: initializing, using a workflow management system, a workflow that holds state for and encodes a sequence of steps that contain parallel workflow tasks (Abstract, where workflow management system corresponds to Applicant’s “workflow management system”; col. 6, lines 1-9: where roles are interpreted to correspond to Applicant’s “state”. Applicant’s specification does not provide a definition of a “state” or a function that describes what the “state” does);
initializing a first sequential workflow step of the workflow, wherein the first sequential workflow step includes two or more workflow tasks, wherein each workflow tasks is associated with a function (col. 6, lines 12-17, where the AND-Split junction corresponds to “initializing a first sequential workflow step”, S2 includes parallel activities A2,1 and A2,2, which correspond to “two or more workflow tasks”);
running the two or more workflow tasks as parallel workflow tasks (col. 6, lines 12-18, “processed…simultaneously” corresponds to Applicant’s “running…tasks”);
initializing a second sequential workflow step of the workflow, wherein the second sequential workflow step includes one or more workflow tasks (col. 6, lines 17-22, where the “AND-Join junction” corresponds to Applicant’s initializing a second sequential workflow step”);
running the one or more workflow tasks (id.);
and determining that the workflow is complete (col. 6, lines 22, “process…complete”).
Barkley does not specifically disclose a workflow management system that runs on a server that supports near real-time communications; receiving a first report that the two or more workflow tasks have been completed; receiving a second report that the one or more workflow tasks have been completed.
However, Ottenfelt discloses a workflow management system that runs on a server that supports near real-time communications, receiving a first report that the two or more workflow tasks have been completed, and receiving a second report that the one or more workflow tasks have been completed ([0042]-[0043], where reports are generated continually according to milestones when a logical section of the workflow has been completed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate continuous report generation as taught by Ottenfelt to inform the use if all of the activities are complete prior to the workflow is considered being complete. This allows the user to take subsequent actions if any subsequent actions are desired prior to the workflow is considered complete.
With respect to claim 6, Barkley discloses: before initializing the workflow, receiving an input to store the workflow including the first sequential workflow step and the second sequential workflow step and receiving an input for each workflow task to encode a function to be called and a payload to be called with (Abstract).
With respect to claim 8, Ottenfelt discloses: causing to display a dashboard for monitoring process of the workflow, including a status of each of the workflow steps and workflow tasks (Fig. 3-5).
With respect to claim 9, Barkley discloses: wherein each workflow task of the two or more workflow tasks are associated with a same function (col. 6, line 36, “permissions” correspond to Applicant’s “same function”).
With respect to claim 10, Barkley discloses: receiving an input to add a third sequential workflow step to the workflow; and initializing the workflow for a second dataset of objects, wherein the workflow includes the first sequential workflow step, the second sequential workflow step, and the third sequential workflow step (col. 6, lines 20-22).
With respect to claims 11, 16, 18, and 19, they recite similar limitations as claims 1, 6, 8, and 9, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 20, it recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkley (US 6088679) in view of Ottenfelt et al. (US 2014/0280300) further in view of Sjostrand et al. (US 2019/0209116).
With respect to claim 2, Barkley and Ottenfelt do not specifically disclose: wherein the running of the two or more workflow tasks as parallel workflow tasks includes pushing the two or more workflow tasks as respective task messages to an asynchronous task service that provides queues that parallelize workflow tasks.
However Sjostrand discloses: wherein the running of the two or more workflow tasks as parallel workflow tasks includes pushing the two or more workflow tasks as respective task messages to an asynchronous task service that provides queues that parallelize workflow tasks ([0212]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate parallel asynchronous task service as taught by Sjostrand to combine speed and responsive by running tasks concurrently without blocking the main program, leading to better resource use, faster overall execution, improved scalability, and a smoother user experience.
With respect to claim 12, it recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkley (US 6088679) in view of Ottenfelt et al. (US 2014/0280300) further in view of Donahue (US 7657831).
With respect to claim 4, Barkley and Ottenfelt do not specifically disclose: running a query to determine a list of object identifiers associated with the dataset; and determining a division of the list of object identifiers that results in a plurality of partitions of object identifiers, wherein each workflow task of the two or more workflow tasks is associated with a respective partition of object identifiers.
However, Donahue discloses: running a query to determine a list of object identifiers associated with the dataset; and determining a division of the list of object identifiers that results in a plurality of partitions of object identifiers, wherein each workflow task of the two or more workflow tasks is associated with a respective partition of object identifiers (claim 1, where “plurality” corresponds to Applicant’s “two or more”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to allow a user to create a workflow without having to possess the knowledge of a form creation or macro creation process which enables higher availability of workflow creation tools to executives who may not have the aforementioned knowledge base.
With respect to claim 14, it recites similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkley (US 6088679) in view of Ottenfelt et al. (US 2014/0280300) further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 2021/0160288).
With respect to claim 7, Barkely and Ottenfelt do not specifically disclose: providing an application programming interface (API) for decorating each function as a workflow task.
However, Crabtree discloses: providing an application programming interface (API) for decorating each function as a workflow task ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate APIs as disclosed in Crabtree to handle high volume of information exchange as the API is designed to be scalable and self-load-balancing.
With respect to claim 17, it recites similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Examiner’s Note
No prior art has been found for claims3, 5, 13, and 15. However, they are subject to the 35 USC 112 rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195