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
This Non-Final office action is in response to the application filed on November 14, 2023, the amendments to the claims filed on August 18, 2025, and the Request for Continued Examination December 3, 2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 13 and product Claim 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving a specification of a computer workflow including a plurality of computer managed activities organized in an execution ordering including one or more conditional branching decision nodes, wherein at least one of the one or more conditional branching decision nodes is associated with two or more branches; determining a first activity execution condition and a second activity execution condition associated respectively with a first computer managed activity and a second computer managed activity of the plurality of computer managed activities, wherein the first activity execution condition and the second activity execution condition comprise a branch execution condition associated with at least one of the one or more conditional branching decision nodes; generating and transmitting for display a graphical user interface (GUI) corresponding to the computer workflow; executing the computer workflow including the one or more conditional branching decision nodes; based on the first activity execution condition, determining that a condition to start an execution of the computer managed activity is satisfied; and updating the GUI to display first computer managed activity GUI elements and second computer managed activity GUI elements based on the branch execution condition being satisfied.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Visualizing workflow processes recites managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions/concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions/concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” / “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory in Claim 13 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. There are no hardware components recited in Claims 1 or 20. The GUI, executing, and updating the GUI to display first and second computer managed activity GUI elements in Claims 1, 13, and 20 appears to be just software. Claims 13 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor and memory in Claim 13 and GUI, executing, and updating the GUI to display first and second computer managed activity GUI elements in Claims 1, 13, and 20. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0014, 0015] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 13, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 13, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity / Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-5 and 14-17 further define branch activity conditions; Claims 6-8, 18, and 19 further define computer managed activities; Claims 9, 10 further define branch execution conditions; Claims 11 and 12 further define computer processes. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-12 and 14-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub No. 2010/0198934 (OUCHI ‘934) in view of U.S. PGPub. 2006/0259603 (Shrader et al. ‘603).
Re Claim 1: OUCHI ‘934 disclose a method, comprising: receiving a specification of a computer workflow including a plurality of computer managed activities organized in an execution ordering including one or more conditional branching decision nodes (abstract; Figure 7; paragraph [0084]), wherein at least one of the one or more conditional branching decision nodes is associated with two or more branches (Figures 7, 10, 11; paragraphs [0084, 0085, 0100]); determining a first activity execution condition and a second activity execution condition activity associated respectively with a first computer managed activity and a second computer managed activity of the plurality of computer managed activities, wherein the first activity execution condition and the second activity execution condition comprise a branch execution condition associated with at least one of the one or more conditional branching decision nodes; executing the computer workflow including the one or more conditional branching decision nodes (Figures 7, 10, 11; paragraphs [0084, 0085, 0100]); based on the first activity execution condition, determining that a condition to start an execution of the first computer managed activity is satisfied (paragraph [0124]); and updating the first computer managed activity and second computer managed activity based on the branch execution condition being satisfied (Figures 28, 32).
OUCHI ‘934 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, with the exception of including generating and transmitting for display a graphical user interface (GUI) corresponding to the computer workflow and updating the GUI to display one or more GUI elements. Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose a user interface that is a GUI based application that generates and updates to display the computer workflow (paragraphs [0054, 0058]; Figures 12-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of OUCHI ‘934, in view of the teachings of Shrader et al. ‘603, to include the use of a GUI, for the basic reason of combining known methods of displaying information to yield the predictable result of a more user-friendly interface.
Re Claim 2: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the second activity execution condition comprises a parent termination condition of the first computer managed activity (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0085, 0097, 0098]).
Re Claim 3: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: determining that the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is located on a particular branch of the two or more branches, and is not directly behind a conditional branching decision node associated with the particular branch in the execution ordering, and is directly behind a parent activity in the execution ordering; setting an additional branch execution condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities to the particular branch having been evaluated by the conditional branching decision node as being chosen to be executed; and setting a parent termination condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities to the parent activity having been evaluated as terminated or skipped (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0097-0102]).
Re Claim 4: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: in response to determining that the additional branch execution condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities and the parent termination condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities are both satisfied, determining that the condition to start the execution of the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is satisfied (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0095-0097]).
Re Claim 5: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: in response to determining that the additional branch execution condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is satisfied and that a parent termination condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is not yet satisfied, updating the GUI to display one or more additional GUI elements including at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities before the execution of the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0083, 0172]; Figures 28, 32; Shrader et al. ‘603: paragraphs [0054, 0058]; Figures 12-14).
Re Claim 6: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: determining that at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is not located on the two or more branches, and is directly behind a parent activity in the execution ordering; setting an additional branch execution condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities to NULL, wherein NULL is having zero branch execution conditions; and setting a parent termination condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities to the parent activity having been evaluated as terminated or skipped (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0071-0081]).
Re Claim 7: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: in response to determining that the parent termination condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is satisfied, determining that the condition to start the execution of the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is satisfied (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0097-0102]).
Re Claim 8: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: in response to determining that the additional branch execution condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is set to NULL, updating the GUI to display the one or more GUI elements including the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities before an execution of the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities, wherein NULL is having zero branch execution conditions (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0071-0081]; Shrader et al. ‘603: paragraphs [0054, 0058]; Figures 12-14).
Re Claim 9: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: determining that all branches in the computer workflow merge into at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities; and setting an additional branch execution condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities to NULL, wherein NULL is having zero branch execution conditions (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0071-0081]).
Re Claim 10: OUCHI ‘934 in view of Shrader et al. ‘603 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: in response to determining that the additional branch execution condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities is set to NULL, updating the GUI to display the one or more GUI elements including the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities before the execution of the at least one of the plurality of computer managed activities, wherein NULL is having zero branch execution conditions (OUCHI ‘934: paragraphs [0071-0081]; Shrader et al. ‘603: paragraphs [0054, 0058]; Figures 12-14).
Re Claims 13-19: System claims 13-19 are substantially similar to previously rejected method claims 1-6 and 8, respectively, and therefore are considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Re Claim 20: Computer program product claim 20 is substantially similar to previously rejected method claim 1 and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 9-14) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not directed towards organizing human activity since the claims do not recite any humans (Remarks, pages 9-10), are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. The claims recite visualizing workflow processes which recites managing personal behavior including rules or instructions/concepts performed in a human mind. The act of “selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and [announcement] does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not abstract since they are directed to an improved user interface citing Core Wireless Licensing (Remarks, pages 10-11), are not persuasive. Specifically, in Core Wireless the court found that, “Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. … These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” However the present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Elec. Power, 2016 WL4073318, at *4.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims of the present invention are analogous to those of McRo (Remarks, pages 11-12), are not found persuasive. In McRo, the court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists. Further, the court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process”, unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Bascom, (Remarks, pages 13-14), are not found persuasive. In Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the current claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Further, the claims fail to set forth a specific combination of elements in specific locations but rather disclose known components functioning in their known capacity in their known locations. Hence, Bascom does not apply here.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action. 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. As such, the entirety of the references should be considered as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
8/2/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619