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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of mental process.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The above claim falls within mental process, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.)
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…a computer-readable media…user interface…memory…processor…data store…graph…software application…reference diagram…process diagram…”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) as well-understood, routine, conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, 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 are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 2-8 and 10-16, and 18-20 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 2-8 and 10-16, and 18-20 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 do include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…a computer-readable media…user interface…memory…processor…data store…graph…software application…reference diagram…process diagram…”
These amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and a high level of generality.
In addition, Fig.1 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the system. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Claims 2-8,10-16, and 18-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Moreover, claims 5 & 13 are further rejected as the abstract idea of organizing human activity with the aid of a computer. There the claims are disclosing instructions for a user via a search bar and input search terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4,6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Grossman et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0348969) (Hereinafter, Grossman) .
As per claim 1,
Grossman teaches,
A computing system comprising:
a data store; and
(paragraph 57)
a processor configured to
(paragraph 56)
generate an image of a process which comprises a sequence of nodes displayed therein which correspond to a sequence of events that occur within the process and edges between the sequence of nodes which indicate execution times between the sequence of events within the process;
(paragraphs 33-36 read in conjunction with paragraphs 63, and 95-96 in their entirety; discussing how the prior art invention generates a W-graph (i.e. image of a process) that is representative of workflows (i.e. process and events) that include nodes and edges and maybe timestamped (i.e. execution times)
display the image via a user interface of a software application;
(paragraphs 60-62)
select a reference image of the process from a data store, where the reference image comprises a different sequence of nodes displayed therein corresponding to a different sequence of events that occur within the reference process;
(paragraphs 63-66; wherein W-graph received is functioning as the reference image and process and the receieved W-graph is different workflow (i.e. different sequence of events) that will guide the user; see also, noting on paragraphs 63-64 “…the GUI application 135 may generate and display a W-graph GUI and/or a W-suggest GUI. During the runtime phase implementing the W-graph GUI, the GUI application 135 may send a user selection of a particular task to the workflow engine 112 and receive a W-graph corresponding to the selected task from the workflow engine 112. The GUI application 135 may display the received W-graph within a W-graph GUI…”)
identify an improvement to the sequence of events within the process based on a comparison of the image to the reference image; and
(paragraph 131, noting “…in some embodiments, a W-suggest function includes the analysis of a current workflow (condensed workflow) for a current user performing a task based on a comparison of the current workflow with a W-graph generated for the same task. In particular, the W-suggest engine 118 may generate a modified current workflow that includes one or more highlighted/designated edges, each highlighted/designated edge indicating a user technique that may be improved in terms of efficiency. The modified current workflow may be displayed in the W-suggest GUI for viewing by the current user. The current user may also interact with the modified current workflow…”)
modify the image of the process to include a different execution flow included in the reference image based on the identified improvement.
(paragraphs 134-137, discussing how the modified workflow is saved to the database)
As per claim 2,
Grossman teaches,
the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to annotate an edge between two nodes within the image of the process corresponding to two different events within the process to include an average execution time between the two different events
(paragraph 121, noting “ As shown, the compiled metrics for the overall W-graph may include metrics such as a total number of distinct representative workflows, an average time for performing the representative workflows with standard deviation (as indicated by the screen recordings…”)
As per claim 3,
Grossman teaches,
the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to retrieve process data from the data store, and identify the sequence of events that occur within the process and the execution times between the sequence of events based on the retrieved process data
(paragraphs 33-36 read in conjunction with paragraphs 63, and 95-96; see claim 1 notations)
As per claim 4,
Grossman teaches,
the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to insert an alternative edge within the image of the process between an existing node among the sequence of nodes within the image of the process and a new node from the reference image of the process
(see Fig. 7, noting elements 720 & 770 and corresponding text)
As per claim 6,
Grossman teaches,
the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to overlay the reference image on top of the image of the process within the user interface, and identify the improvement within the image of the process based on a comparison of an alternative process flow within the overlaid reference image to an existing process flow within the image of the process
(Fig. 5 and corresponding text; the Examiner noting the similarity between Fig. 5 and Applicant’s Fig. 6B, both showing workflows overlaid)
As per claim 7,
Grossman teaches,
the computing system of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to visually change one or more of a color and a width of the alternative process flow when the reference image is overlaid on the image of the process to distinguish the alternative process flow from an existing process flow of within the image of the process
(paragraph 142)
As per claim 8,
Grossman teaches,
the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to identify a variant that occurs in each of the process and the reference process, identify differences between the occurrences of the variant in each of the process and the reference process, and display the differences via the user interface
(paragraphs 142-145)
As per claims 9-12 and 14-16:
Claims 9-12 and 14-16 disclose similar limitations to the claims above, however, as a method function. Grossman’s invention teach the method function of the claims above. Therefore, claims 9-12 and 14-16 are rejected under similar rationale as claims above.
As per claims 17-20:
Claims 17-20 disclose similar limitations to the claims above, however, as a computer readable medium performing a method. Grossman’s invention teach a computer readable medium performing a method function of the claims above. Therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected under similar rationale as claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Look et al, (US Pub. No.2017/0024436) (Hereinafter, Look)
As per claim 5,
Grossman does not explicitly teach; however, Look does teach,
the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to display a search bar via the user interface, receive an input search term via the search bar displayed on the user interface, query metadata of a plurality of respective reference images in the data store based on the search term, and select the reference image based on the queried metadata in comparison to the input search term
(Fig. 13 and corresponding text).
Grossman discloses all the above limitations but in an established set of searchable workflows. Grossman fails to disclose a search bar that includes an input of a search term. Look does disclose such limitations elements in their prior art invention for searching workflows to be modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Look within the invention of Grossman with the motivation of making searching for workflows to be more user friendly, and thus, more efficient and accurate for the user.
Claim 13 discloses similar limitations to the claims above, however, as a method function. Grossman’s invention teach the method function of the claims above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights