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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 9-11 and 16-19 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 are amended
Claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13 and 20 are cancelled
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind. (Applicant’s 3/6/26 remarks, p.10, “Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to a mental process because the claim limitations, particularly as currently amended, cannot practically be performed in the human mind with aid of pen and paper ("claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." M.P.E.P. § 2106.04 (citing SRI Int 'l, Inc. V. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011))).
Applicant's claims recite a specific technical process "by which a single compressed decision model object is generated for a multi-condition workflow and that can be efficiently processed to evaluate the multi-condition workflow and/or to convert the single compressed decision model object back into a workflow language for displaying a visual representation of the multi-condition workflow to the user (e.g., so that the user can review or update the configuration of the multi-condition workflow)."”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Applicant’s claim recite language with technical characteristics (e.g. compressed decision model object and multi condition workflow), the examiner respectfully suggests that this could merely present a table or flowchart of steps. (See e.g., Applicant’s fig. 3 or 4). A human could certainly produce the objects represented in Fig. 3 or Fig. 4. That the claim recites a “compressed” decision model is not persuasive, for the reason that the scope of the compression is not set forth. That is, compression is a concept with a different meanings in computer science and also in everyday parlance. Information that is compressed could merely be summarized or distilled, which a flowchart certainly could do.
Applicant also argues that the invention is a practical application of an abstract idea. (Applicant’s 3/6/26/ remarks, p.13, “Here, as discussed above, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into the practical application of accurately resolving transaction data. For example, as described in Applicant's Specification, "techniques described herein avoid the network calls and computing resource utilization that would otherwise occur as a result of generating and processing separate decision model objects for each individual condition, and thereby improve the functioning of computing devices involved," and therefore "techniques described herein allow multi- condition workflows to be configured and executed in a scalable manner that could not be achieved using existing techniques that support only one condition per decision model object, thereby further improving the functioning of computing applications and devices involved.") The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05a states "It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology.” A human organization could choose to have one approval flowchart for all expenditures rather than separate flows for each type of expenditure, which would similarly reduce the need and work to access separately documented approval processes. The examiner does not agree that this feature is particular to a computer implementation or that such a strategy improves the functioning of the computer.
Applicant has compared Applicant’s invention to the patent eligible invention in the Federal Circuit decision XY, LLC vs Trans Ova Genetics. (Applicant’s 3/6/26 remarks, p.13)
However, in the XY decision, the invention was directed to operating a cytology apparatus to separate male or female cells. The examiner does not agree that the “improved result” of applicant’s workflow arises to the same level of application of a process to achieve a result. Applicant’s invention operates on data to produce a decision that does not have a comparable effect on the real world. The examiner notes that, generally, inventions relating to receiving, analyzing and displaying data using generic computers have not been found to be eligible. (See. E.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
Applicant also argues that the invention improves the functioning of a computer, also citing the BASCOM decision. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again, although Applicant’s invention improves a workflow and efficiency of the workflow, there is no evidence it improves computing generally. In addition, the BASCOM decision is at least distinguishable, because the arrangement of the claimed filtering amongst the hardware elements in BASCOM contributed to eligibility. In contrast, Applicant’s invention recites no such hardware arrangement so much as implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer. That the invention creates a single model (e.g. could be a flowchart) that could be executed serially, reducing the need for network calls for other decision objects is not a computer specific improvement. An organization could institute one decision flowchart that a human can execute step by step without the need for consulting other flowcharts.
Applicant’s amendments are believed to be addressed by Morinville. (see below).
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 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1,9,17 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of a generating and using a data processing workflow which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor/memory nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor/memory the limitations on generating a single compressed decision model for a multi condition workflow, generating object comprising first index, first condition, action conditional on first condition, generating second entry comprising first index/condition, second index, generating third entry comprising second index and second condition depends on first condition being false, generating process model maps identifier of action to logic, executing workflow, determining output identifier, determine and perform logic is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to a data processing workflow stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. The examiner understands based upon Applicant’s specification that the workflow could be a process for approving a business transaction. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor and memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the data workflow steps. The subject matter of claims 2/10/18 (serially processing decision model entries), 3/11/19 (display workflow based on parsing) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Morinville 20090157462
Regarding Claim 1
generating, by a compression engine, a single compressed decision model object for a multi-condition workflow, wherein generating the single compressed decision model object comprises:
Morinville discloses building an approval matrix to allow business personnel to approve transactions having various parameters and thresholds. (Morinville, para 0099, “[0099] Administration. The central business process management system allows companies to manage all business processes from a single location. This is accomplished by linking access to roles in each request process, and by administering trip points and approval matrixes. In a preferred embodiment, the administration of the system is controlled by several rules: each subordinate position takes on the business process rules of its superior position; a subordinate position cannot change, delete or override the rules set by a superior position; and a subordinate position can add approvers to the Approval Matrix.”) The understands that the Approval Matrix is compressed insomuch as the matrix does not require every member of an organizational hierarchy to approve transactions.
generating a first entry in the single compressed decision model object comprising:
a first index value; a first condition; and an identifier of an action of the multi-condition workflow that depends on the first condition being true, wherein the identifier identifies the action as a conditional output for the first entry that depends on the first condition;
Morinville discloses that the approval workflow could be constrained by occurrence of approvals in a chain. The examiner interprets this to be a condition. (Morinville, para [0083] Other scenarios may include situations in which one of the conditions specified by the trip points (shipping type, cost, quantity or date) is met. For instance, if the price is greater than $1000 and all other trip points are unmet, the matrix identifies the approvers (in column 42) as a director, one level of management, a controller, and a procurement person. The numbers on the left side of the column indicate that the first level manager, controller, and procurement can approve concurrently, then director approval is obtained last.”)
generating a second entry immediately following the first entry in the single compressed decision model object comprising: the first index value; and a second index value as a default output for the second entry;
generating a third entry immediately following the second entry in the single compressed decision model object comprising: the second index value; and a second condition of the multi-condition workflow that depends on the first condition being false;
(Morinville, para 0080, “Trip points may comprise a variety of different data types. For example, they may comprise quantities, prices, the number of days between two dates, shipping methods, reasons for requests, status of concurrent requests in the business process, or administrator defined conditions.”). The examiner interprets these to be conditions. Further, based on different conditions, different tiers and orders of approval may be required. For example if the question is the approved transaction is more than 1000, the approval flow could change depending on if the answer is true or false. (Morinville, para 0083, “For instance, if the price is greater than $1000 and all other trip points are unmet, the matrix identifies the approvers (in column 42) as a director, one level of management, a controller, and a procurement person. The numbers on the left side of the column indicate that the first level manager, controller, and procurement can approve concurrently, then director approval is obtained last.”). The examiner understands that the approval levels could include 3 or more entities or entries. (Morinville, para 0082-84, “[0082] Referring to FIG. 7, a diagram illustrating an approval matrix and the use of trip points therein is shown. The upper portion of the diagram corresponds to a trip point matrix and the lower portion corresponds to an approval matrix. The matrix controls the selection of approvers for a corresponding business process under a variety of scenarios. For example, in a "normal" scenario, the shipping type is not "overnight", the cost of the computer is less than $1000 and the quantity is one. Consequently, the system selects the "normal" set of approvers from column 41. The right side of the column identifies the number of management levels that must approve the process (one), as well as specifying that the controller must approve it (as indicated by the "X" in the corresponding row). The numbers on the left side of the column indicate the order in which the approvals must be obtained. Since both approvals are 1's, they can be concurrently obtained.
[0083] Other scenarios may include situations in which one of the conditions specified by the trip points (shipping type, cost, quantity or date) is met. For instance, if the price is greater than $1000 and all other trip points are unmet, the matrix identifies the approvers (in column 42) as a director, one level of management, a controller, and a procurement person. The numbers on the left side of the column indicate that the first level manager, controller, and procurement can approve concurrently, then director approval is obtained last.
[0084] If the quantity is greater than 1 and all other trip points are unmet, the first level manager and Controller are identified for simultaneous approval, followed by the first Director directly up the organizational structure, and finally the vice president (see column 43). If multiple trip points are met, the system accumulates the approvers and the approval order from each affected trip point.”). That is, one condition may be the “normal” condition which would entail approvals for the normal condition. If it is false that it is only a normal condition, then other scenarios must be considered. (Morinville, para 0083, “Other scenarios may include situations in which one of the conditions specified by the trip points (shipping type, cost, quantity or date) is met. For instance, if the price is greater than $1000 and all other trip points are unmet, the matrix identifies the approvers (in column 42) as a director, one level of management, a controller, and a procurement person.”) Monrinville discloses that tasks could be indexed by an order of operations. (Morinville, fig. 7)
Generating a process model object based on the single compressed decision model object, wherein the process model object maps the identifier of the action to logic for performing the action.
executing the multi-condition workflow in a software application by serially processing the single compressed decision model object.
(Morinville, claim 8, “8. A software program product comprising one or more program instructions contained in a computer-readable medium and executable by a computer system to perform the method including: defining a hierarchical organizational structure of positions within an organization; associating one of a plurality of roles with each of the positions; identifying selected data; a first position within the hierarchical organizational structure associating one or more access rules with the selected data, wherein the access rules are applicable to a first subset of the roles; and automatically associating the one or more access rules with the selected data for all positions that are subordinate to the first position within the hierarchical organizational structure and that are associated with the first subset of roles.”) Approver positions are notified. The examiner interprets this to be mapping the logic for performing the action. (Morinville, para 0090, “[0090] Approval. After the request has been submitted for approval, the request is directed to each of the identified approvers. This is illustrated in FIG. 9. The status of the approval can be viewed by the requesting user, as well as the approving roles. As the request is approved (or as other actions are taken by the requester or approvers), this information is made available to the participants in the approval process. The approval process is complete when either all of the approvers have approved the request, or one of the necessary approvers has declined the request. Notifications can be sent to the participants at the end of the approval process. Notifications may also be sent to the participants after a predetermined aging period as reminders that the request is still pending.”)
wherein executing comprises:
determining, based on the serially processing of the single compressed decision model object, that the identifier of the action is an output of the first entry;
using the process model object to determine the logic for performing the action based on the identifier of the action; and
performing the action using the logic.
Morinville discloses that requests could be sequential or parallel in nature.
(See also, Morinville, para 0104, “0104] Business Processor. In one embodiment of the present system, a closed loop business process engine or business processor is provided. The business processes on which the business processor operates can be a simple as a single request process, or a very complicated linking of request processes sequentially and in parallel triggering multiple internal company, and external partner and vendor actions.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Morinville discloses the method of claim 1.
processing the first entry; determining that the first condition is not true;
moving to processing of the second entry upon determining that the first condition is not true based on the second entry immediately following the first entry in the single compressed decision model object; identifying the second index value as the default output of the second entry; and
moving to processing of the third entry based on determining that the third entry corresponds to the second index value.
(Mornville, para 0082-84, “For example, in a "normal" scenario, the shipping type is not "overnight", the cost of the computer is less than $1000 and the quantity is one. Consequently, the system selects the "normal" set of approvers from column 41. The right side of the column identifies the number of management levels that must approve the process (one), as well as specifying that the controller must approve it (as indicated by the "X" in the corresponding row). The numbers on the left side of the column indicate the order in which the approvals must be obtained. Since both approvals are 1's, they can be concurrently obtained.
[0083] Other scenarios may include situations in which one of the conditions specified by the trip points (shipping type, cost, quantity or date) is met. For instance, if the price is greater than $1000 and all other trip points are unmet, the matrix identifies the approvers (in column 42) as a director, one level of management, a controller, and a procurement person. The numbers on the left side of the column indicate that the first level manager, controller, and procurement can approve concurrently, then director approval is obtained last.
[0084] If the quantity is greater than 1 and all other trip points are unmet, the first level manager and Controller are identified for simultaneous approval, followed by the first Director directly up the organizational structure, and finally the vice president (see column 43). If multiple trip points are met, the system accumulates the approvers and the approval order from each affected trip point.”). That is, one condition may be the “normal” condition which would entail approvals for the normal condition. If it is false that it is only a normal condition, then other scenarios must be considered. (Morinville, para 0083, “Other scenarios may include situations in which one of the conditions specified by the trip points (shipping type, cost, quantity or date) is met. For instance, if the price is greater than $1000 and all other trip points are unmet, the matrix identifies the approvers (in column 42) as a director, one level of management, a controller, and a procurement person.”) One result of considering another scenario is assigning an entity to approve a request. (Morinville, fig.7)
Regarding Claim 3, Morinville disclose the method of claim 2.
further comprising displaying a visual representation of the multi-condition workflow based on parsing the single compressed decision model object to generate a worfklow representation.
(Morinville, para 0089, “[0089] Summarize. After the request is built, it is summarized. Information associated with the request (e.g., the employees identified for approval of the request) is displayed, and the requester can update or add to the information before the request is submitted for approval. In some cases, this may occur automatically without the need for user input. In other instances, the user may enter data such as justification notes. When the request is summarized, the necessary approval roles are determined from the corresponding approval matrix.”)
Regarding Claims 9, 10,11,17,18,19
See prior art rejection of claim 1,2,3,,1,2,3
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights