DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to amendment filed on 3/6/2026, in which claims 21 - 22, 27 – 28, 30, 32, 36, and 38 – 41 was amended, and claims 21 – 36 and 38 - 41 was presented for further consideration.
3. Claims 21 – 36 and 38 - 41 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 – 36 and 38 – 41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 21 – 24, 38, and 40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 18, and 2 of U.S. Patent No.US 11,789,941 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claims 1, 18, and 2 of U.S. Patent No.US 11,789,941 B2 anticipates all the elements of claims 21 – 24, 38, and 40 respectively.
Instant Application #: 18/466,162
Patent #: US 11,789,941 B2
21. A computer system that implements an organizational management platform that controls and leverages organizational data to manage organizational applications for an organization, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more databases that collectively store a set of organizational data associated with the organization, wherein the set of organizational data comprises an object graph data structure; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations, the operations comprising: maintaining a trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger;
evaluating the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event, by processing synthesized data of the object graph data structure while traversing the object graph data structure; wherein the synthesized data comprises data that is extracted from different third-party sources and synthesized into a centralized system of record comprising a single graph with the object graph data structure; determining that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating; obtaining an approval for activating the trigger; activating the trigger in response to obtaining the approval; and executing a set of one or more operations based on the activation of the trigger.
1. A computer system that implements
an organizational management platform that controls and leverages organizational data to manage organizational applications for an organization, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more databases that collectively store a set of organizational data associated with the organization, wherein the set of organizational data comprises an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of employee data objects that respectively, correspond to a plurality of employees of the organization; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations, the operations comprising: maintaining a trigger associated with an application, the trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger,
the one or more conditions comprising a query expression, the trigger further comprising a set of one or more operations for execution based on the activation of the trigger, and the operations being based on a custom query language supported by the application; evaluating the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event associated with the application, wherein evaluating the set of one or more conditions involves traversing the object graph data structure to return a data object of the organizational data as a response to the query expression,
wherein the organizational data
includes organizational structure data defining organizational relationships between one or more data objects in the object graph data structure,
wherein the one or more data objects includes the data object, and wherein traversing the object graph data structure includes using the organizational relationships to traverse the object graph data structure; determining that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating; determining whether approval is required for activation of the trigger; obtaining, if approval is required for activation of the trigger, an approval for activating the trigger; activating the trigger in response to obtaining the approval; and executing the set of one or more operations associated with the custom query language based on the activation of the trigger, the set of one or more operations being performed based at least in part on the organizational data associated with the application.
38. One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: maintaining a trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger;
evaluating the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event
by processing synthesized data of an object graph data structure while traversing the object graph data structure associated with organizational data associated with an organization; wherein the synthesized data comprises data that is extracted from different third-party sources and synthesized into a centralized system of record comprising a single graph with the object graph data structure, determining that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating; obtaining an approval for activating the trigger; activating the trigger in response to obtaining the approval; and executing a set of one or more operations based on the activation of the trigger.
18. One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: maintaining a trigger associated with an application, the trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger,
the one or more conditions comprising a query expression, the trigger further comprising a set of one or more operations for execution based on the activation of the trigger, and the operations being based on a custom query language supported by the application; evaluating the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event associated with the application, wherein evaluating the set of one or more conditions involves traversing the object graph data structure to return a data object of the organizational data as a response to the query expression, wherein the organizational data includes organizational structure data defining organizational relationships between one or more data objects in the object graph data structure, wherein the one or more data objects includes the data object, and wherein traversing the object graph data structure includes using the organizational relationships to traverse the object graph data structure;
determining that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating; determining whether approval is required for activation of the trigger; obtaining, if approval is required for activation of the trigger, an approval for activating the trigger; activating the trigger in response to obtaining the approval; and executing the set of one or more operations associated with the custom query language based on the activation of the trigger, the set of one or more operations being performed based at least in part on the organizational data associated with the application.
40. A computer-implemented method for managing organizational applications for an organization, the method comprising: maintaining, by one or more processors, a trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger; evaluating, by the one or more processors, the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event, by processing synthesized data of an object graph data structure while traversing the object graph data structure associated with organizational data associated with the organization, wherein the synthesized data comprises data that is extracted from different third-party sources and synthesized into a centralized system of record comprising a single graph with the object graph data structure; determining, by the one or more processors, that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating, obtaining, by the one or more processors, an approval for activating the trigger; activating, by the one or more processors, the trigger in response to obtaining the approval; and executing, by the one or more processors, a set of one or more operations based on the activation of the trigger.
2. A computer-implemented method for performing processing of computer instructions, comprising: maintaining
a trigger associated with an application; the trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger, the one or more conditions comprising a query expression, the trigger further comprising a set of one or more operations for execution based on the activation of the trigger, and the operations being based on a custom query language supported by the application; evaluating the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event associated with the application, wherein evaluating the set of one or more conditions involves traversing the object graph data structure to return a data object of organizational data as a response to the query expression, wherein the organizational data includes organizational structure data defining organizational relationships between one or more data objects in the object graph data structure, wherein the one or more data objects includes the data object, and wherein traversing the object graph data structure includes using the organizational relationships to traverse the object graph data structure;
determining that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating; determining whether approval is required for activation of the trigger; obtaining, if approval is required for activation of the trigger, an approval for activating the trigger; activating the trigger in response to obtaining the approval; and executing the set of one or more operations associated with the custom query language based on the activation of the trigger, the set of one or more operations being performed based at least in part on the organizational data associated with the application.
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.
6. Claims 21 – 26, 29 – 36, and 38 - 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1), in view of Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1), in view of Frohock et al (US 2015/0242407 A1), and further in view of Morinville (US 2009/0182607 A1).
As per claim 21, Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1) discloses,
A computer system that that implements an organizational management platform that controls and leverages organizational data to manage organizational applications for an organization (para.[0003]; “data may be stored in a structure that
reflects real-world relationships. ……. in a Human Resources database, a hierarchy of data may be set up which mirrors an organizational situation in which workers report
to on-site managers”).
the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more databases that collectively store a set of organizational data associated with the organization (para.[0003]; “data storage system that reflects the real-world structure of, in this case, an organization” and para.[0022]; “the database 102 in FIG. 1 is illustrated as having a central processor unit (CPU) 106, an 1/0 unit 108 for communicating
with the computer 104, memory 110, and a storage device”).
wherein the set of organizational data comprises an object graph data structure (para.[0027]; “database system 102 is used to store a table 120, which stores information in a hierarchical manner. More specifically, FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a directed graph 200 for storing hierarchical information, and the table 120 corresponds to the directed graph 200. In FIG. 2, business objects are represented as nodes on the directed graph”).
and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations (para.[0010]; “a storage medium having instructions stored thereon. The instructions include a first code segment for storing data objects within a table, a second code segment for storing a relation of a first data object to a second data object in the table, where the first data object and the second data object correspond to consecutive nodes on a directed graph”).
traversing the object graph data structure (para.[0043]; “a query may seek to determine information about an object or node that is lower on the directed graph 200 of FIG. 2 than, and usually part of many branches from, an object or node that is higher on the graph” and para.[0045]; “find out directly which organization a given person belongs to. …..would be necessary to select all objects that are below the top node of the hierarchy, and then follow the hierarchy down to the level in question”).
Kaiser does not specifically disclose specifically disclose the operations comprising: maintaining a trigger associated with an application, the trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger, evaluating the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event associated with the application, determining that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating,
However, Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) in an analogous art discloses,
the operations comprising: maintaining a trigger comprising a set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger (col.1 lines 39 – 42; “rules may include combinations of triggers, evaluation conditions, and system actions, so that satisfying appropriate triggers or evaluation conditions results in the execution of the corresponding system actions”).
evaluating the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based on an occurrence of an event (col.10 lines 64 – 67; “program data 114b may instruct performance of system actions specified by rules which have triggers and/or evaluation conditions that have been determined to be satisfied by the decision engine”).
determining that the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger is satisfied based on the evaluating (col. 1 lines 62 – 63; “determining that a trigger and evaluation condition associated with a rule is satisfied” and col.13 lines 43 – 46; “test the execution of configured rules on a test environment of the application 132 prior to transmitting the program configuration 114a to the server”).
and executing a set of one or more operations based on the activation of the trigger (NOTE: col.5 lines 50 – 52; “When certain triggers or evaluation conditions are satisfied, the system actions specified by the rules are executed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into graphical representation of organization structure of the system of Kaiser to provide automatic execution action thereby minimizing resources used in retrieving data object.
Neither Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1) nor Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) specifically disclose by processing synthesized data of the object graph data structure while traversing the object graph data structure, wherein the synthesized data comprises data that is extracted from different third-party sources and synthesized into a centralized system of record comprising a single graph with the object graph data structure.
However, Frohock et al (US 2015/0242407 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
by processing synthesized data of the object graph data structure while traversing the object graph data structure (para.[0053]; “Each attribute is
represented as nodes in the graph, with a line representing a relationship to a dataset”).
wherein the synthesized data comprises data that is extracted from different third-party sources and synthesized into a centralized system of record comprising a single graph with the object graph data structure (para.[0035]; “synthesizes data structures from a corpus of data sources ……. construct a belief in a relationship between attributes of datasets, known as a Relationship Confidence Metric (RCM) and para.[0053]; “graph 300 shows the RCM relationships between datasets 310, 320, 330, and 340. Each dataset 310, 320, 330, and 340 has been retrieved by a data collection module from one or more data sources”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system of Frohock into customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain to join datasets from disparate sources, thereby enabling centralized access to datasets.
Neither Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1) nor Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) nor Frohock et al (US 2015/0242407 A1) specifically disclose obtaining an approval for activating the trigger; activating the trigger in response to obtaining the approval and executing a set of one or more operations based on the activation of the trigger.
However, Morinville (US 2009/0182607 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
the operations comprising: maintaining a trigger associated with an application (para.90079]; “A trip point is a condition which can affect the approvers/participants which are identified in connection with a business process. If the condition is met, the corresponding trip point is triggered”).
obtaining an approval for activating the trigger (para.[0089]; “If approvers are required, automated signature looping is triggered. This may occur automatically, or in response to the user submitting the request for approval”).
activating the trigger in response to obtaining the approval (para.[0089]; “If approvers are required, automated signature looping is triggered. This may occur automatically, or in response to the user submitting the request for approval”)
and executing a set of one or more operations based on the activation of the trigger (para.[0091]; “Execute. After the request has been approved, it can be completed. Completion of the request may consist of performing the requested action”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate automated business process of the system of Morinville into synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system and customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain to bridge business process gaps between people, resources and systems, thereby increasing the amount of information which is available, to increase control and to increase efficiency.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
wherein the one or more conditions comprise a query expression, and wherein the trigger further comprises a set of one or more trigger operations for execution based on the activation of the trigger, and the one or more trigger operations are based on a custom query language which leverages organizational data from the centralized system of record (col.14 lines 11 – 18; “selectable options from the list of triggers 112a, the list of evaluation conditions 112b, and the list of system actions …….. a logical expression such as a structured query language (SQL) for setting evaluation conditions for a configured rule”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate automated business process of the system of Morinville into synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system and customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain to bridge business process gaps between people, resources and systems, thereby increasing the amount of information which is available, to increase control and to increase efficiency.
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated and further Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1) discloses,
wherein a data object of the organizational data is returned as a response to the query expression (para.[0060]; “query is satisfied by first directly locating the object contained in the query within the graph 200 (i.e., within the table 120) (408). Then, once the object is located, the path information associated with the object is accessed (410) and compared to the query”).
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1) discloses,
wherein the organizational data includes organizational structure data defining organizational relationships between one or more data objects in the object graph data structure, and wherein traversing the object graph data structure includes using the organizational relationships to traverse the object graph data structure (para.[0043]; “a query may seek to determine information about an object or node that is lower on the directed graph 200 of FIG. 2 than, and usually part of many branches from, an object or node that is higher on the graph” and para.[0045]; “find out directly which organization a given person belongs to. …..would be necessary to select all objects that are below the top node of the hierarchy, and then follow the hierarchy down to the level in question”).
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1) discloses,
wherein the set of one or more operations are associated with a custom query language for the organizational management platform (para.[0002]; “a database query, for example in the form of a SQL statement”).
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
the operations further comprising: determining whether to evaluate the set of one or more conditions for activation of the trigger based on analyzing information associated with the occurrence of the event (col. 1 lines 62 – 63; “determining that a trigger and evaluation condition associated with a rule is satisfied”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
the operations further comprising providing one or more graphical user interfaces that enable one or more users to configure the set of one or more conditions for the trigger (col.14 lines 11 – 14; “configuration interface 112 as a selection of user-selectable options from the list of triggers 112a, the list of evaluation conditions 112b, and the list of system actions 112c, the configuration interface 112 may provide other means of configuring rules”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
wherein at least one of the graphical user interfaces comprises at least one graphical user interface that allows the one or more users to configure the set of one or more conditions associated with the trigger based at least in part on a data model comprising multiple categories of the organizational data maintained by the centralized system of record (col.14 lines 11 – 14; “configuration interface 112 as a selection of user-selectable options from the list of triggers 112a, the list of evaluation conditions 112b, and the list of system actions 112c, the configuration interface 112 may provide other means of configuring rules”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 31, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
the operations further comprising: providing one or more graphical user interfaces that enable one or more users to configure the set of one or more operations for the trigger (col.14 lines 11 – 14; “configuration interface 112 as a selection of user-selectable options from the list of triggers 112a, the list of evaluation conditions 112b, and the list of system actions 112c, the configuration interface 112 may provide other means of configuring rules”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 32, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
wherein at least one of the graphical user interfaces comprises at least one graphical user interface that allows the one or more users to configure the set of one or more operations associated with the trigger based at least in part on a data model representing multiple categories of the organizational data maintained by the centralized system of record (col.14 lines 11 – 14; “configuration interface 112 as a selection of user-selectable options from the list of triggers 112a, the list of evaluation conditions 112b, and the list of system actions 112c, the configuration interface 112 may provide other means of configuring rules”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 33, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
the operations further comprising: generating instructions in a custom query language based on configuration information associated with the trigger (col.2 lines 22 – 25; “customize the triggers and/or evaluations conditions specified for each rule within a group in order to adjust the evaluation techniques used by the decision engine module”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 34, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
the operations further comprising: performing one or more tests based on executing the instructions in view of the organizational data (col.13 lines 42 - 44; “use the configuration interface 112 to test the execution of configured rules on a test environment of the application”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 35, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
the operations further comprising: providing information associated with performing one or more tests based on executing the instructions (col.13 lines 46 – 49; “specify different rules for a particular program and then compare predicted performance differences between the execution of each rule on the application”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
As per claim 36, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1) discloses,
the operations further comprising: deploying instructions for the trigger in a custom query language to enable the trigger with the application (col.2 lines 22 – 25; “customize the triggers and/or evaluations conditions specified for each rule within a group in order to adjust the evaluation techniques used by the decision engine module”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain into automated business process of the system of Morinville and synthesizing of data from multiple data sources of the system Frohock to customize a set of rules to dynamically adjust the configuration and output of an application provided to users.
Claims 38 and 39 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to system claims 21 – 22 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 21 – 22 respectively above.
Claim 40 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 21, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 21 above.
As per claim 41, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Morinville (US 2009/0182607 A1) discloses,
wherein the determination of whether the approval is required for activation of the trigger is based on analyzing the object graph data structure ((para.[0020]; “the role structure is used in conjunction with a hierarchical organization structure to allow the organization structure to be searched for positions which are associated with a particular role”, para.[0086]; “triggering the request if no approvals are required”, para.[0087]; “If no approvals are required for the request to proceed, it is automatically triggered”, and para.[0088]; “request is built by pulling information from data sources which are available to the system. ….. sources may include internal sources of information such as position or employee data”).
7. Claims 27 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1), in view of Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1), in view of in view of Frohock et al (US 2015/0242407 A1), in view of Morinville (US 2009/0182607 A1), and further in view of Barbara et al (US 2017/0118220 A1).
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Kaiser et al (US 2005/0010606 A1), Jain et al (US 9,848,061 B1), and Morinville (US 2009/0182607 A1) does not disclose wherein the executing comprises performing one or more operations associated with a third-party application based at least in part on the organizational data, one of the third-party sources comprises the third-party application being integrated with the centralized system of record, and the third-party application utilizes at least some of the organizational data.
However, Barbara et al (US 2017/0118220 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the executing comprises performing one or more operations associated with a third-party application based at least in part on the organizational data, one of the third-party sources comprises the third-party application being integrated with the centralized system of record, and the third-party application utilizes at least some of the organizational data (para.[0033]; “Each user lifecycle code module 104 corresponds to a particular third-party application 110; thus, each module 104 specifies the particular way to implement responses to a particular user lifecycle event for a particular third-party application, thereby integrating the third-party application 110 into the user lifecycle framework defined by the server”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate use of third party application available to arrange organization data of the system of Barbara into automated business process of the system of Morinville and customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain to activate process that need to be automatically perform in the system of Kaiser.
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Barbara et al (US 2017/0118220 A1) discloses
wherein the centralized system of record enables one or more users of the organization to manage the organizational data in association with one or more different third-party applications from among the different third-party sources (para.[0033]; “lifecycle code module 104 corresponding to the SALESFORCE application would typically take different actions to implement a "new user" event than would a user lifecycle module corresponding to the MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 application, e.g., due to the different APIs of the different applications”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate use of third party application available to arrange organization data of the system of Barbara into automated business process of the system of Morinville and customization of a set of rules for adjusting configuration and output of application provided to user of the system of Jain to activate process that need to be automatically perform in the system of Kaiser.
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 AUGUSTINE KUNLE OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights