DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 7 July 2026. Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
20130050725
Pars. 8-11
Changing how a second process is performed based on a requested first process.
20160004488
Pars. 42-50
Ordered workflow processes where a suspension between two processes is used to modify a subsequent process
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-10 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 10, the define, perform, arrange, exert control cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The request/requested limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components (e.g. processors, execution, UI, display unit). Even when viewed in combination, 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 3, 4, 8 the prohibit, ask, delete cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The provide, present, receive are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2 the prohibit cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 7 provide, present are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al., Patent No.: US 5999911 A, hereinafter Berg, in view of Takao et al., US 20050166184 A1, hereinafter Takao.
As per claim 1, Berg discloses An information processing system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
when a series of processes on a file are defined in advance, the series of processes including a first process and a second process, the second process being performed after execution of the first process (abstract includes “A workflow includes a number of steps having … dependency relationships… The dependency relationships represent the conditions that must be satisfied.” See also, col. 7, lines 4-16, col. 11, lines 20-30, 48-49, 58-64, col. 12, lines 7-8, 37-39, col. 17, line 23), arrange a first request unit and a second request unit on a display unit in an order of execution of the series of processes, the first request unit being used to request the first process, the second request unit being used to request the second process (Berg graphically displays the workflow steps according to their defined dependency relationships, such that the displayed sequence reflects the order in which the dependent steps are executed: col. 2, lines 5-7, col. 9, lines 1-15, 50-65, col. 16, lines 35-40, col. 24, lines 6-7. Note that col. 18, lines 16-21 disclose controlling user operations according to workflow dependencies, including disabling workflow branches and graying corresponding steps such that they cannot be executed); and
after the first process is requested by using the first request unit, and before the second process is requested by using the second request unit (see Berg as cited above including at least col. 11, lines 20-30 and col. 17, fig. 10 description which disclose requesting and executing workflow steps according to defined dependency relationships, wherein a subsequent dependent is not executable until the prerequisite step has been completed, which defines a period after execution of the first step and before execution of the subsequent dependent step), exert a control related to a user operation (col. 18, lines 16-21 disclose controlling user operations according to workflow dependencies, including disabling workflow branches and rendering corresponding steps gray such that the steps cannot be executed)
Berg does not expressly disclose, however, Takao discloses:
based on a determination of a failure of the second process caused by the user operation when an operation corresponding to the user operation performed on a user interface is executed between the first process and the second process (Takao, pars. 76-80 disclose providing user interface controls for editing processing operations, including editing, deleting, and changing the execution order of the processing operations, pars. 111-115 disclose determining whether a condition resulting from a preceding processing operation would prevent execution of a subsequent operation by determining whether output data format of the preceeding processing plugin is consistent with input data format as required by the subsequent plugin, and that upon determining an inconsistency, notify user of error and require corrections).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berg’s workflow control mechanism in view of Takao’s compatibility determination and responsive UI control, such that a user operation that is performed between sequential workflow processes is controlled when it is determined that the resulting condition would cause failure of the subsequent process. Both references support such a motivation to combine in that Berg teaches that workflow step dependencies have to be satisfied for execution of subsequent steps and Takao teaches detecting and correcting incompatibility between successive processing operations. Combining these known teachings would have predictably prevented user operations from causing subsequent workflow processes to fail, with each teaching performing its known function, consistent with the predictable results rationale of MPEP 2143.
Analogous claims 9-10 are likewise rejected.
As per claim 2, Berg as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: as the control related to the user operation, prohibit the user operation on a user interface that causes the failure of the second process (Berg col. 18, lines 16-21 disclose disabling user selectable workflow operations such that they cannot be executed and Takao, pars. 111-115 disclose determining incompatibility with a subsequent process and requiring correction before proceeding).
As per claim 3, Berg as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: as the control related to the user operation, prohibit the user operation on the user interface, and provide, on the display unit, a notification indicating that the user operation will cause execution of the second process to fail (Berg col. 18, lines 16-21 disclose disabling the unavailable operation and visually indicating the disabled state and Takao, par. 113-115 disclose notifying the user of the incompatibility and requiring correction before proceeding).
As per claim 5, Berg as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: as the control related to the user operation, provide, on the display unit, a notification of a user operation which will cause execution of the second process to fail (Berg col. 18, lines 16-21 disclose visually indicating operations that cannot be executed; Takao, pars. 111-115 disclose determining an incompatibility that prevents subsequent processing and notifying the user of an error and need for correction).
As per claim 7, Berg as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: present, on the display unit, a user operation which is necessary for execution of the second process (see rejection of claim 1; see Berg col. 16, lines 35-45 which disclose displaying workflow steps with dependency relationships defining prerequisite operations required for execution of subsequent steps).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg as modified above and further in view of H. Davis, US 20220237104 A1, hereinafter Davis.
As per claim 4, Berg as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 2. The combination does not disclose but in view of Davis it discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to: as the control related to the user operation, prohibit the user operation on the user interface and present, on the display unit, a different user operation on the user interface which does not cause the execution of the second process to fail when the different user operation is performed before the second process (Davis, fig.’s 1-2 and corresponding portions of the detailed description disclose displaying on a GUI, suggested remedial actions determined for actions that successfully resolve an issue, the suggested action selectable by the user to correct the issue).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Davis would have allowed the combination to present a corrective user operation determined to resolve an identified failure in order to enable the user to correct the condition and successfully proceed with the subsequent process.
As per claim 6, Berg as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 5. The combination does not disclose but in view of Davis it discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to: as the control related to the user operation, provide a notification of a different user operation which will cause execution of the second process to succeed if the different user operation is performed in addition to execution of the user operation which will cause execution of the second process to fail (Davis, fig.’s 1-2 and corresponding portions of the detailed description disclose displaying suggested remedial actions for correcting an issue, including actions previously determined to have successfully resolved a similar issue).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Davis would have allowed the combination to present a corrective user operation determined to resolve an identified failure in order to enable the user to correct the condition and successfully proceed with the subsequent process.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg as modified and further in view of Yagi et al., US20100138835A1, hereinafter Yagi.
As per claim 8, Berg as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to. Berg as modified does not expressly disclose however Yagi discloses as control related to the user operation, ask, on the display unit, whether the second process is to be deleted from the series of processes; and when the second process is to be deleted from the series of processes, receive the user operation, and, when the second process is not to be deleted, prohibit the user operation (Yagi, par. 18, 76, 136-143).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Yagi’s disclosed mechanism of asking a user whether a designated process should be included before conditionally permitting or prohibiting that process would have allowed Berg as modified’s workflow management system to present users with an explicit deletion choice when a downstream step cannot execute.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 7 July 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the prior art rejection of the independent claims, Takao et al., US 20050166184 A1, has been applied to address claim amendments.
Arguments directed to the 35 USC 101 rejection on pages 12-13 of the remarks are not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite a particular improvement to computer architecture, processing, memory, or GUI technology. The claimed processor(s) merely implement rules governing when a user operation should be controlled based on its anticipated effect on a subsequent process. The claimed display and request units and user interface provide the computer environment through which the rule is implemented. Merely applying the exception using generic computer or GUI components does not establish an improvement to computer functionality.
Page 13 of the remarks includes “This determination requires technical analysis of file attributes, process execution conditions, and user input, as supported by the ‘execution condition’ concept in FIG. 5 and paragraph [0054] of the published specification (management table 500, showing execution conditions for processes). This involves concrete computational operations on a specific data structure to predict a technical failure.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that the claim does not recite these features. More specifically, the claim does not require analyzing particular file attributes, a particular execution condition data structure, or any specified failure prediction algorithm.
Arguments on page 14 are not persuasive because claim 1 does not require the particular GUI modifications relied upon by Applicant; claim 1 broadly requires “control related to a user operation.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Page 15 of the remarks includes “The limitation ‘after the first process is requested by using the first request unit and before the second process is requested by using the second request unit’ defines a precise and critical time window for the control. This is not a generic ‘during execution’ but a specific interval where user intervention is most likely to cause unforeseen failures.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. This language merely limits “exert a control” to some arbitrary point in time between a request of the first process and before a request of the second process. Merely specifying a broad and generically described sequential timing for applying the abstract control rule does not provide a technological improvement. No particular technological mechanisms for accomplishing the control, determination, operation performance, etc. are recited in the claim.
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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
