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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 29 October 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previous raised. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn. The amended claims set forth a series of layered functional interactions with specifically recited interactive elements that are essential to the ability to perform the claimed methodology. Accordingly, claims are considered to be integrated into a practical application.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 103, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to teach features including configuring guided actions to include a branch condition including a logic decision configured to detect a real time condition, where the branch condition dynamically changes the flow sequence of actions. This argument has been fully considered but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant further argues that Bangel fails to teach a claim element to display an explanation for how to perform the associated guided action. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims require configuring, via a gui, the one or more guided actions to display an explanation. The fact that the explanation is for how to perform the associated guided action upon selection does not functionally or structurally limit the ability to display an explanation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of an explanation includes any detailed information relating to a task or action. A recitation of the intended use must result in a structural or functional difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Thus the applied art meets the interpretation of the claim that requires displaying an explanation for how to perform a task because there are no details explicitly defining what constitutes “how to perform a task” so any details or information about that tasks or actions that can be further provided meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that requires displaying an explanation for how to perform the associated guided action upon selection. See updated grounds of rejection below, specifically Bangel Fig. 11F.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintermeister et al. (US 2006/0085790) in view of Bangel et al. (US 2006/0184409) further in view of Conaway (US 2020/0122855).
As per Claim 1 Hintermeister teaches:
A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
generating, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a visual guidance model of a multi-process scenario including creating one or more process goals (Hintermeister in at least Fig. 3 illustrates a GUI for creating a goal in at least item 372 and 308), each of the one or more process goals defining a stage in a lifecycle of the multi-process scenario (Fig. 3 and at least [0033, 0041-0047] describe goals in stages of a lifecycle, see also [0055-0058, 0063-0064]);
creating, via the GUI, one or more objectives within each of the one or more process goals, each of the one or more objectives defining a task for accomplishing the corresponding process goal, and configuring at least one of the one or more objectives to display a description of the task performed by the objective (Hintermeister in at least Fig. 3-9 and [0041-0047, 0055-0058, 0063-0064] illustrates and describes creating goals with objectives defining specific tasks for accomplishing a goal and displaying details of the tasks, objectives and goals);
providing, by the GUI, graphical options for configuring the one or more objectives to include one or more guided actions that partition the task to be performed into a sequence of guided actions for the corresponding objective (Hintermeister in at least Figs. 3-9 and [0041-0047, 0055-0058, 0063-0064] illustrates and describes configuring a flow of tasks that will be run to help achieve a goal, specifically Fig. 8 items 810-814 and Fig. 7 illustrate graphical options for configuring the system and goals by adding tasks to set up, monitoring, and/or maintaining phases as well as other related tasks);
configuring, via the GUI, the one or more guided actions as a flow diagram including (i) a flow sequence of actions (Hintermeister in at least Fig. 8 item 812 illustrates configuring, via the GUI, a series of guided tasks or actions as a flow sequence of tasks to achieve a goal)
wherein completion of the sequence of guided actions within an objective completes the corresponding objective, and completion of the one or more objectives within each process goal completes the corresponding process goal (Hintermeister in at least Figs. 3-9 and [0041-0047, 0055-0058, 0063-0064] illustrates and describes illustrating status for individual tasks in a sequence, the overall number of tasks completed and how much work remains).
Hintermeister illustrates and describes providing details and a display of guided actions but does not specifically recite that the display includes an explanation for how to perform guided actions upon selection, a branch sequence of actions including a logic decision configured to detect a real time condition or a second flow in response to detecting the real time condition’s success or failure.
However, Bangel teaches using an integrated software application for comprehensive goal management. Bangel further teaches:
for a selected objective from the one or more objectives, configuring, via the GUI, the one or more guided actions to display an explanation for how to perform the associated guided action upon being selected (Bangel in at least Fig. 2, 11F and [0057] illustrate and describe defining goals and how actions and tasks are performed and completed to achieve a goal, [0091 and 0095] describes Figs. 11A-G and 12A-C and how a detailed description of the goal, specifically Fig. 11F, where the goal detail includes describing that a goal will be achieved through a combination of healthy common sense diet and exercise, i.e. how to perform it, and explanation of why it is important is created as well as detailed descriptions for each action, i.e. how to perform it, are established and displayed in the GUI along with directions, i.e. how to perform a task or action, insights, motivations and inspirations); and
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the goal based interface to include techniques for providing detailed explanations via the gui because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By displaying detailed explanations for specific actions and goals the combination enables a more user friendly environment where all essential information can be accessed via the GUI.
Neither Hintermeister nor Bangel explicitly recite a branch sequence of actions including a logic decision configured to detect a real time condition or a second flow in response to detecting the real time condition’s success or failure.
However, Conaway teaches a graphical user interface for generating and displaying checklists in GUIs with a plurality of tasks on a display, determining completion or status related to tasks and proceeding accordingly. Conaway further teaches:
configuring, via the GUI, the one or more guided actions as a flow diagram including (i) a flow sequence of actions and (ii) a branch condition at a specified action, wherein the branch condition includes a logic decision configured to detect a real-time condition; wherein the branch condition dynamically changes the flow sequence of actions at the specified action to a second flow sequence for performing different steps in response to detecting the real-time condition including whether the specified action is successful or not successful (Conaway in at least Fig. 1 item 110, Fig. 2i, Figs. 4-6, 15, 16, 18, 19 and at least [0078-0082, 0086, 0115-0116, 0127, 0139, 0140, 0145, 0150] illustrate and describe using a gui to configure a flow of actions including branches where decisions based on detecting real time conditions are used to determine how to proceed, e.g. check list decision points and branching, the branch flows can change when conditions trigger certain scenarios including success or failure of certain tasks or actions) ;
for a selected objective from the one or more objectives, configuring, via the GUI, the one or more guided actions to display an explanation for how to perform the associated guided action upon being selected (Conaway in at least Figs. 3, 7, 8A, 8B, 16 and 18 and [0069, 0075, 0087-0089, 0092, 0113, 0127-0132] illustrate and describe checklists, tasks and additional information indicators that can present pop-ups with further directions, details, information, warnings, etc. that provide additional information critical to the performance of a task, i.e. how to perform the action) ; and
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the goal based interface to include techniques for providing branch conditions, logic decisions that detect conditions and perform different flows based on condition evaluation because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By enabling branch conditions, condition evaluation and detection and different sequences of tasks to be performed based on success or failure of certain actions, the combination provides advantages to crews including basic usability principles and menu structure design, interaction and content design, crew error reduction and performance enhancement (Conaway [0003]).
As per Claim 2 Hintermeister further teaches:
generating, via the GUI, a list of the one or more objectives for completing a corresponding process goal, wherein each described task for a corresponding objective describes a substage of the lifecycle for the corresponding process goal (Hintermeister in at least Fig. 3 illustrates a GUI for creating a goal in at least item 372 and 308 and at least Figs. 4-9 and [0033, 0041-0047] illustrate and describe goals in stages of a lifecycle including sub categories and detailed breakdowns, see also [0055-0058, 0063-0064]).
As per Claim 3 Hintermeister further teaches:
generating, via the GUI, the flow diagram of the one or more guided actions within a corresponding objective, wherein the flow diagram including the flow sequence of actions, when completed in whole, performs the task described in the corresponding objective (Hintermeister in at least Figs. 3-9 and [0041-0047, 0055-0058, 0063-0064] illustrates and describes a sequence diagram, completion/progress and task performance for different goals, objectives and tasks).
As per Claim 4 Hintermeister does not explicitly recite determining how to reroute or revise downstream actions as a result of completing an action. However, Bangel further teaches:
analyzing, via the visual guidance model, a result produced by completing a first guided action from a first objective to determine how to route to a following guided action in the sequence (Bangel in at least [0025, 0055, 0061, 0065, 0075, 0077, 0082, 0091-0095] describes analyzing results and modifying or updating the actions, action plan, sequence or other details in response).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the goal based interface to include techniques for analyzing data and enabling updates or modification because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By determining updates or modifications for specific actions and goals the combination enables a more user friendly environment where all essential information can be accessed and revised via the GUI.
Conaway further teaches in at least Figs. 3, 7, 8A, 8B, 16 and 18 and [0069, 0075, 0087-0089, 0092, 0113, 0127-0132] checklists, tasks and additional information indicators that can present pop-ups with further directions, details, information, warnings, etc. that provide additional information critical to the performance of a task, i.e. how to perform the action and is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per Claim 5 Hintermeister illustrates and describes providing details and a display of guided actions but does not specifically recite that the display includes an explanation for how to perform guided actions upon selection. However, Bangel teaches:
creating, via the GUI, at least one of: one or more content operations that populate the explanation for a target guided action upon the target guided action being selected and displayed on the GUI, wherein the explanation is displayed for guiding a user on performing the guided action and preparing for the next guided action within the sequence of guided actions, and one or more autopilot operations that automatically populate content for automatically performing the target guided action and complete one or more guided actions in the sequence of guided actions (Bangel in at least Fig. 2 and [0057-0065] illustrates and describes defining goals and how actions and tasks are performed and completed to achieve a goal through automatic execution or other synchronization functions, [0025, 0065, 0077-0082, 0091 and 0095] describes Figs. 11A-G and 12A-C and how a detailed description of the goal and explanation of why it is important is created as well as detailed descriptions for each action are established and displayed along with a next step and sequence number for each step).
Bangel is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conaway further teaches in at least Figs. 3, 7, 8A, 8B, 16 and 18 and [0069, 0075, 0087-0089, 0092, 0113, 0127-0132] checklists, tasks and additional information indicators that can present pop-ups with further directions, details, information, warnings, etc. that provide additional information critical to the performance of a task, i.e. how to perform the action and is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per Claim 6 Hintermeister further teaches:
dynamically analyzing, via the visual guidance model, a content and a configuration of the one or more guided actions to identify one or more actions for automatically completing the corresponding guided action, and wherein the visual guidance model displays the analyzed one or more guided actions as pending (Hintermeister in at least Figs. 3-9 and [0041-0047, 0055-0058, 0063-0064] illustrates and describes the ability to analyze actions to identify more actions or related tasks and displaying the actions as in process, pending or waiting to be executed according to dependencies and results).
As per Claim 7 Hintermeister further teaches:
configuring, via the GUI, at least one guided action of the one or more guided actions to include a user option that when selected automatically performs the guided action multiple times to obtain a result (Hintermeister in at least Figs. 3-9 and [0041-0047, 0055-0058, 0063-0064] illustrates and describes the ability to continually monitor and run tasks until a specific result is achieved or until completion).
As per Claims 8-20 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in claims 1-7 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of claims 1-7 above.
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623