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 response to the reply filed December 24, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12 have been amended.
Claims 3-7, 9, 11, and 13-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-24 have been newly submitted.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12, and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s remarks filed December 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
The Patent Office has rejected claims 1 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Id). In view of the amendments to the pending claims, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims include additional steps which amount of significantly more than well-understood, routine, and convention uses of a computer, or mere data gathering. Therefore, in the event that the Patent Office considers that the claims encompass abstract ideas, which Applicant submits they do not, the pending claims recite patent eligible subject matter under Step 2B (i.e., Step 2B: YES). As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection below, the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 102, Applicant presented the following arguments:
The Patent Office has rejected claims 1 -20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwaitzberg (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0153727). (Id. at 8). In view of the amendments to the claims, Applicant respectfully submits that the novelty rejection is rendered moot and should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, Schwaitzberg anticipates the amended claims. Examiner notes that the assumption objects of Schwaitzberg are associated with tasks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities: the use of “and/or” is informal where the broadest reasonable interpretation is “or” which has been applied to the pending claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 8, 10, 12, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, and 21 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 12 and 22-24 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 12, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of receiving process flows, organizing the process flows into a hierarchy, and displaying the hierarchy of process flows, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including business relations) by reciting the relationship between parent and child process flows. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing process flows and evaluating their hierarchical arrangement. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “receiving process flows, organizing the process flows into a hierarchy, and displaying the hierarchy of process flows,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving entry of process elements, determining a hierarchical arrangement of process elements, calculating the cost or duration of the hierarchy, and computing variants of the process elements. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a storage device, a user interface, a computing device, and a memory does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 2, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: displaying a function.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 12 recite the additional elements: a processor, a storage device, a user interface, a computing device, and a memory. These processor, storage device, user interface, computing device, and memory limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually 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.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of organizing process flows in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing organizational process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a processor, a storage device, a user interface, a computing device, and a memory. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial), and navigating an interface (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a processor (Specification [0453]), a storage device (Specification [0454]), a user interface (Specification [0457], [0458]), a computing device (Specification [0452]), and a memory (Specification [0454]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a processor, a storage device, a computing device, and a memory. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims limit the field of use by reciting process flows. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 8, 10, and 21-24, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10, 12, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwaitzberg et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0153727 A1), hereinafter Schwaitzberg.
Claim 1.
Schwaitzberg discloses a system to provide dynamic digital construction of hierarchical process flows, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a storage device (Schwaitzberg [0024] processor; [0030]-[0031] memory), wherein the processor executes application code instructions that are stored in the storage device to cause the system to:
receive an entry of
(i) one or more process elements related to performing a process, wherein the received one or more process elements include one or more parent process elements and one or more child process elements, wherein at least one of the one or more process elements is a parent process element associated with at least one of the one or more child process elements (Schwaitzberg Fig. 2A, Fig. 3, Fig. 6A, [0035], [0045], [0078] hierarchal tree; Fig. 4A, [0055] child events are indented under their parents; [0029], [0069] task assumption object may include an indication of a task to be performed; [0040], [0042] formula builder defines how to combine child assumption objects; [0047], [0048] update hierarchical tree; [0078], [0089], [0093], [0098], [0106] combine values of the child assumptions according to the formula builder), and
(ii) one or more parameters associated with each of the one or more process elements, wherein each of the one or more parameters for each of the received one or more process elements include a plurality of attributes, wherein each attribute of the plurality of attributes is representative of a cost and/or duration associated with the received one or more process elements (Schwaitzberg [0048], [0049], [0051] new assumption object; [0069], [0070] task objects associated with assumption objects; Fig. 3, [0022] costs);
determine a hierarchical arrangement of the received one or more process elements, wherein the hierarchical arrangement comprises the at least one parent process element and the at least one or more child process elements (Schwaitzberg [0031], [0034], [0037], [0045], [0048], [0049], [0051], [0078], [0095] model builder via which a user constructs the hierarchical tree that forms the risk model);
continuously calculate the cost and/or duration of the determined hierarchical arrangement of the received one or more process elements based on the received one or more parameters (Schwaitzberg [0031], [0050], [0051], [0093] time analyzer simulates the risk model; [0066], [0074] re-simulate the risk model with the completed tasks; Fig. 3, [0022] costs; [0072], [0092], [0103], [0104] update the task object to include indications of the documentation); and
continuously compute one or more variants of the one or more process elements for each of the at least one parent process element within the determined hierarchical arrangement, wherein each of the computed one or more variants of the one or more process elements comprises one or more cost and/or duration parameters for each of the at least one of the one or more child process elements (Schwaitzberg [0031], [0050], [0051], [0093] time analyzer simulates the risk model; [0066], [0074] re-simulate the risk model with the completed tasks; [0039], [0059], [0064] type of probability distribution function; Fig. 3, [0022] costs; [0072], [0092], [0103], [0104] update the task object to include indications of the documentation).
Claim 2.
Schwaitzberg discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Schwaitzberg discloses:
display a function associated with the at least one parent (Schwaitzberg Fig. 2A Item 265a, [0035] “High Frequency Clothing Volume (combo)”; [0038], [0048], [0076] assign an assumption object a label or name; Fig. 3 Item 365a, [0046] parent assumption object; [0040], [0042], [0078], [0089], [0093], [0098], [0106] formula builder).
Claim 8.
Schwaitzberg discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Schwaitzberg discloses:
further comprising instructions to identify one or more attributes of the plurality of attributes associated with the at least one parent process element (Schwaitzberg [0072], [0073], [0104] documents for task object completion; [0035] parent may have children and grandchildren; [0067], [0082], [0083], [0109], [0111] adjust the values of the parent quantitative assumption objects).
Claim 10.
Schwaitzberg discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Schwaitzberg discloses:
wherein the plurality of attributes associated with the at least one child process element of the at least one parent process element are aggregated and the aggregated plurality of attributes are associated with the parent process element (Schwaitzberg [0035] parent may have children and grandchildren; [0067], [0082], [0083], [0109], [0111] adjust the values of the parent quantitative assumption objects).
Claim 12.
Schwaitzberg discloses a computer program product, comprising:
(i) one or more processors, and (ii) one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more memories to store computer-executable program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Schwaitzberg [0024] processor; [0026] database; [0030]-[0031] memory), cause the computer program product to perform operations comprising:
Schwaitzberg discloses all the remaining limitations of claim 12 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 21.
Schwaitzberg discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Schwaitzberg discloses:
wherein the at least one child process element is an activity in a process, and the at least one parent process element is an aggregation of the at least one child process element (Shcwaitzberg [0029], [0069] task assumption object may include an indication of a task to be performed; [0034] view any tier, node, object, etc.; [0035] parent may have children and grandchildren; [0045] model builder may create a new tier view showing the child assumption objects; [0047] existing assumption objects; [0048] select an assumption object from the list of existing assumption objects to include as the new child assumption object).
Claim 22.
Schwaitzberg discloses all the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Additionally, Schwaitzberg discloses:
wherein at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes includes feedback from the workforce associated with the received one or more process elements (Schwaitzberg [0072], [0092], [0103], [0104] update the task object to include indications of the documentation).
Claim 23.
Schwaitzberg discloses all the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Additionally, Schwaitzberg discloses:
wherein at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes includes human or system data related to the performance of the received one or more process elements (Schwaitzberg [0072], [0092], [0103], [0104] update the task object to include indications of the documentation; [0039], [0059], [0064] type of probability distribution function).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaitzberg in view of Lee et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2008/0312979 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Claim 24.
Schwaitzberg discloses all the elements of claim 12, as shown above. However, Schwaitzberg does not teach the following limitation, but Lee does:
wherein at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes includes a system-calculated customer satisfaction score associated with the received one or more process elements (Lee [0085], [0188] value model takes into consideration customer satisfaction; [0077], [0191] hierarchical structure of value drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include customer satisfaction as taught by Lee in the assumption objects of Schwaitzberg, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of business modeling, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Schwaitzberg’s system with the improved functionality to increase the accuracy of the value predictions by considering additional factors that have an impact on the outcome of a value model.
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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights