DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-9, 19 and 20 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a process.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite performing workflow orchestration, including generating, retrieving, assigning, associating, aggregating, receiving, and correlating steps.
The limitations of generating, retrieving, assigning, associating, aggregating, receiving, and correlating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites generating a unique job identifier associated with a requested automation workflow; retrieving a workflow template associated with the requested automation workflow, the workflow template comprising one or more phases, each phase specifying one or more tasks including instructions directing one or more system components to deploy configuration changes to one or more Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components; associating one or more unique reference IDs to the unique job identifier, wherein each of the one or more unique reference IDs is self-generated by one of one or more system components that performs at least a subset of tasks specified in the one or more phases; aggregating status reports generated by the one or more system components; correlating each status report with a corresponding unique reference ID associated with the system component that generated the status report; and generating a status of the requested automation workflow based on the status reports.
Additionally, independent claim 19 recites generating a unique job identifier associated with a requested automation workflow; retrieving a workflow template associated with the requested automation workflow, the workflow template comprising one or more phases, each phase specifying one or more tasks including instructions directing one or more external system components to deploy configuration changes to one or more Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components; assigning one or more tasks to one or more external system components located in the external computing system; associating one or more unique reference IDs to the unique job identifier, wherein each of the one or more unique reference IDs is self-generated by one of one or more external system components that performs at least a subset of tasks specified in the one or more phases; receiving status reports generated by the one or more external system components; correlating each status report with a corresponding unique reference ID associated with the external system component that generated the status report; and generating a status of the requested automation workflow based on the status reports.
That is, other than reciting a plugin associated with an external computing system in claim 19, the claim limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including business relations, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a plugin associated with an external computing system. The plugin associated with an external computing system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a plugin associated with an external computing system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 further describe the workflow template. Claim 5 recites additional generating, transmitting, and receiving steps. Claims 6 and 7 further describe the status of the requested automation workflow. Claims 8 and 9 recite additional receiving, associating, and transmitting steps. Similarly, dependent claim 20 recites additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a plugin associated with an external computing system.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0085 of the specification, “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine. The instructions, when executed via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, enable the implementation of the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks. Such processors may be, without limitation, general purpose processors, special-purpose processors, application-specific processors, or field-programmable gate arrays.”
Moreover, as discussed in paragraph 0036 of the specification, “Plugins 290 are software modules that provide data exchange capability between universal state manager 210 and one or more external computer systems. In various embodiments, a user or any component of workflow orchestration platform 110 may exchange data with external computer systems via universal state manager 210 and plugins 290. The user or component may also access and retrieve event logs or other historical log files located in an external computer system. The external computer systems may be virtual or physical and may be co-located with workflow orchestration platform 110 or located remotely.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elenbaas et al (US 20090204471 A1), in view of Renzi et al (US 20070180490 A1), in further view of Blassin et al (US 20160162478 A1).
As per claim 1, Elenbaas et al disclose a computer-implemented method for performing workflow orchestration (i.e., The job owner module 250 may, in conjunction with the workflow engine 258, allow the job owner to track the status of jobs or tasks, ¶ 0074), the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a unique job identifier associated with a requested automation workflow (i.e., A job table 612 may include, among other fields, Job/Task ID (a unique number identifying a job, task or a subtask), ¶ 0117);
retrieving a workflow template associated with the requested automation workflow, the workflow template comprising one or more phases, each phase specifying one or more tasks (i.e., the workflow engine 258 reads the job template associated with the job description, and generates one or more task descriptions according to the procedure as described in the procedure section of the job template, ¶ 0080);
associating one or more unique reference IDs to the unique job identifier, wherein each of the one or more unique reference IDs performs at least a subset of tasks specified in the one or more phases (i.e., After the job owner defines a job and related tasks, a job table and one or more task tables are generated by the workflow engine 258 and stored in the local repository 240. A job table 612 may include, among other fields, Job/Task ID (a unique number identifying a job, task or a subtask), ¶ 0117, wherein A task table 614 includes similar fields for tasks linked to the job table 612. The subprojects fields in the task table 614 indicates subtasks that constitute the task described in the task table 614. A subtask table 616 also includes similar fields, ¶ 0118 and Figure 6A);
aggregating status reports generated by the one or more system components (i.e., The job owner module 250 may, in conjunction with the workflow engine 258, allow the job owner to track the status of jobs or tasks assigned to workers using the work management system 110, ¶ 0074);
correlating each status report with a corresponding reference ID associated with the system component that generated the status report (i.e., A job table 612 may include, among other fields, Job/Task ID (a unique number identifying a job, task or a subtask),…status (indicating whether the job is pending or terminated), ¶ 0117);
and generating a status of the requested automation workflow based on the status reports (i.e., the workflow engine 258 creates tasks repetitively by regularly posting tasks. For example, the regular task may involve preparing weekly reports on the same subject matter, ¶ 0130).
Elenbaas et al does not disclose one or more tasks including instructions directing one or more system components to deploy configuration changes to one or more Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components.
Renzi et al disclose at the core of the Infrastructure is an enterprise-caliber software distribution platform capable of maintaining all Infrastructure components. It handles the automatic deployments of software and configuration releases for all Components--including agents, processing plug-ins, rule sets, templates, and output plug-ins--that are distributed throughout the network (¶ 0517).
Additionally, Elenbaas et al does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more unique reference IDs is self-generated by one of the one or more system components.
Blassin et al disclose automating the processing of tasks in a business process, such as, for example, translation, can greatly improve worker efficiency, reduce costs, and improve delivery timing, among other things (¶ 0347). One example of facilitating automated translator use of client-specific translation service material may include ensuring use of client-specific style guides and translation glossaries 37602 in discretely submitted on-demand translation projects by tagging each submitted translation project 37604 with a unique identifier for the client. The unique identifier may also identify one or more translation style guides and/or translation glossaries for the client. The unique identifier may be accessible by a translation resource 37608 of a translation engine, such as the translation engine 32114 depicted and described variously herein via an on-demand translation management key 37606 that uniquely identifies the client to the on-demand translation portal API 32104 (¶ 0643).
Elenbaas et al, Renzi et al and Blassin et al are concerned with effective workflow management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more tasks including instructions directing one or more system components to deploy configuration changes to one or more Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components, and wherein each of the one or more unique reference IDs is self-generated by one of the one or more system components in Elenbaas et al, as seen in Renzi et al and Blassin et al, respectively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
As per claim 2, Elenbaas et al disclose the workflow template further comprises one or more dependencies (i.e., For each task in the text box 1752, whether the task is dependent on other tasks is indicated. Further, for each task, the following information is displayed in the text box 1752: (i) the number of tasks completed, (ii) the number of tasks outstanding, (iii) the number of tasks completed, and (iv) specified compensation per task, ¶ 0241).
As per claim 3, Elenbaas et al disclose at least one dependency specifies one or more tasks or phases that must be completed before a different specified task or phase may commence (i.e., For each task in the text box 1752, whether the task is dependent on other tasks is indicated. Further, for each task, the following information is displayed in the text box 1752: (i) the number of tasks completed, (ii) the number of tasks outstanding, (iii) the number of tasks completed, and (iv) specified compensation per task, ¶ 0241).
As per claim 4, Elenbaas et al disclose at least one dependency specifies one or more tasks that have an approval requirement (i.e., FIG. 17B is a user interface 1730 displayed for setting an approval process associated with submitting the result of a task and setting the redundancy of tasks, according to one embodiment, ¶ 0239).
As per claim 5, Elenbaas et al disclose generating, based on the reference ID associated with a particular system component, a status request for the particular system component; transmitting the status request to the particular system component; and receiving, from the particular system component, a status report (i.e., workflow engine 258 may also perform various support operations associated with tracking and/or management of jobs or tasks. The workflow engine 258 accesses data associated with jobs or tasks and presents status update to the job owners via the job owner module 250, ¶ 0081).
As per claim 6, Elenbaas et al disclose the status of the requested automation workflow comprises one or more of a progress status of the requested automation workflow and a progress status of a phase or task specified by the workflow template (i.e., workflow engine 258 may also perform various support operations associated with tracking and/or management of jobs or tasks. The workflow engine 258 accesses data associated with jobs or tasks and presents status update to the job owners via the job owner module 250, ¶ 0081).
As per claim 7, Elenbaas et al disclose receiving a request for the status of the requested automation workflow; and displaying the status of the requested automation workflow via a graphical user interface (i.e., FIG. 17D is a user interface 1750 displayed for allowing a job owner to confirm the status of tasks, ¶ 0241).
As per claim 8, Elenbaas et al disclose receiving identity and role-based access control credentials associated with a requesting entity; associating the identity and role-based access control credentials with the unique job identifier associated with the requested automation workflow; and transmitting the identity and role-based access control credentials to the one or more system components (i.e., Access to the data in the remote servers 142 may be restricted to users in certain geographic locations. For example, users in unsecure geographies (using the user terminal 130) access the remote servers 142 of certain geographic regions, ¶ 0067 wherein The work management server 160 may include look-up tables that store the location of data associated with the job. Based on entries in the look-up tables, the user accesses the data for remote servers 142, ¶ 0068).
As per claim 9, Elenbaas et al disclose the requesting entity is an upstream software platform (i.e., the client software instance may be a plug-in to a web browser that is downloaded in runtime or be stored in the user terminals 130, 140. In another embodiment, the client software instance performs operations offline and sends the results to the work management server 160, ¶ 0069).
Claims 10-18 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-9, respectively, since they are the computer-readable media claims corresponding to the method claims.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1 and 5, respectively, since they are substantially similar method claims.
Additionally, Elenbaas et al disclose the user terminals 130, 140 and the work management server 160 form a client-server architecture. The user terminals 130, 140 may be, among others, a hand-held device, a laptop or desktop computer, a Web appliance, or any other of various well known computing devices. Client software instance (not shown) is executed on the user terminals 130, 140. In one embodiment, the client software instance may be a plug-in to a web browser that is downloaded in runtime or be stored in the user terminals 130, 140. In another embodiment, the client software instance performs operations offline and sends the results to the work management server 160 when user terminals 130, 140 are connected to the network 100 (¶ 0069).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to any of "commercial interactions," "business relations," or "managing interactions" between people. Rather, the claims are directed to automatically generating a unique job identifier associated with a requested automation workflow, identifying one or more tasks included in a workflow template associated with the automation workflow, wherein the tasks include instructions to deploy configuration changes to Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components, receiving unique reference IDs that are self-generated by one or more system components that each perform at least a subset of tasks specified in one or more phases included in the workflow template, aggregating status reports generated by the one or more system components, correlating each status report with a corresponding unique reference ID associated with the system component that generated the status report, and generating a status of the requested automation workflow based on the status reports. The claims are clearly directed to orchestrating and monitoring the operation of computer system components as they automatically perform tasks associated with a requested automation workflow.
The amended claims are not directed to any fundamental economic principles or practices. The claims are also not directed to any commercial or legal interactions. Further, the claims are not directed to managing personal behavior, managing relationships between people, or managing interactions between people. Applicant also notes that the MPEP's recitation of "following rules or instructions" is limited to the context of the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people sub-grouping of human activity. Various embodiments of the claimed invention may include receiving identity and role-based access control credentials associated with a potentially human entity requesting an automation workflow, or receiving approval from a potentially human authority for one or more system components to automatically perform tasks associated with the automation workflow. However, none of these actions represent managing personal behavior, managing relationships between people, or managing interactions between people.
Simply put, the claims as presently amended do not necessitate any kind of human activity, much less any of the enumerated sub-groupings of human activity listed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Applicant also submits that in the rejections, the Examiner has not identified any alleged "business relations" under the "commercial or legal interactions" sub-grouping. The Examiner has also failed to identify any alleged people involved in "managing interactions including following rules" under the "managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people." Because none of the limitations recited in the amended claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract.
Second, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In that regard, the claimed approach is directed towards the practical application of automatically orchestrating the execution of a requested automation workflow by one or more system components, including disparate software applications. See Application at paragraphs [0006]-[0007]. Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvements of both automatically orchestrating and monitoring workflow execution and orchestrating the workflow execution in a way that is agnostic to the technology source(s) of the system components that are performing tasks included in the automated workflow See id. Accordingly, any purported abstract idea recited in the amended claims is integrated into a practical application.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that a technical problem that existed in the prior art prior to the development of the claimed approach was that each individual task included in a computer-implemented workflow may invoke one or more downstream software applications, with each software application potentially being provided by a different software vendor and operating disparately from other software applications. In some cases, task execution may require dependencies between software applications. See Application at Paragraph [0002]. Additionally, each downstream software application may have its own context and data paradigms that are not aligned with one another and cannot be tracked in a managed and centralized manner. The software applications may lack a common communication protocol, further complicating techniques to manage, track, and acquire state information for tasks that have been assigned to the software applications. See Application at Paragraph [0003]. The present Application also makes clear that one of the technical advantages of the claimed approach is that the implementation is vendor-agnostic. The technique is applicable to any software framework or platform regardless of technology provider and does not require that downstream software applications share standardized data paradigms or communication protocols. The workflow orchestration platform centrally tracks and reports the status of jobs, phases, and tasks, and provides accurate, up-to-date status information. These centralized tracking and reporting features also facilitate workflow automation, particularly when there are dependencies between various tasks in a workflow. See Application at Paragraph [0007].
Thus, among other things, the claimed approach solves the above technical problems that existed in the prior art. Further, each of the amended claims recite the specific steps of "generating a unique job identifier associated with a requested automation workflow, retrieving a workflow template associated with the requested automation workflow, the workflow template comprising one or more phases, each phase specifying one or more tasks including instructions to deploy configuration changes to Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components, associating one or more unique reference IDs to the unique job identifier, wherein each of the one or more unique reference IDs is self-generated by one of one or more system components that performs at least a subset of tasks specified in the one or more phases, aggregating status reports generated by the one or more system components, correlating each status report with a corresponding unique reference ID associated with the system component that generated the status report; and generating a status of the requested automation workflow based on the status reports." These limitations are specific to imparting the technological improvement of the claimed approach. See Application at Paragraphs [0024]-[0025].
Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under the legal rule set forth in Finian, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract), under the legal rule set forth in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed towards a technological improvement are not abstract), the rule set forth in Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed towards an improvement in the functioning or operation of a computer or computer network are not abstract), and the legal rule set forth in Weisner v. Google LLC, No. 2021-2228 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed towards a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily recite more than an abstract idea).
In the rejections, the Examiner alleged that "unlike the claims in DDR, which were necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, the claims here have no additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea." Office Action at page 23. The claims as currently amended are directed to monitoring the execution of an automation workflow based on an automation workflow template including instructions to deploy configuration changes to Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components. The amended claims are addressed to overcoming computer network- specific problems by centrally tracking and reporting the status of jobs, phases, and tasks, and providing accurate, up-to-date status information. These centralized tracking and reporting features also facilitate workflow automation, particularly when there are dependencies between various tasks in a workflow. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here, paragraphs 0020 and 0022 recite “GUI services 120 provide an interface through which a user may initiate a workflow request, submit data associated with the workflow request, or view the status of a workflow request. GUI services 120 may display the overall status of a workflow request, as well as the status of individual phases or tasks included in the requested workflow”, and “Workflow orchestration platform 110 coordinates and tracks disparate computer systems and software applications in the execution of individual tasks necessary to complete a user-requested workflow”, respectively.
Moreover, paragraphs 0023 and 0025 recite “In various embodiments, a workflow is a set of tasks that must be completed to achieve a particular goal. For example, a workflow may contain a set of tasks that must be completed to change configuration parameters in a remote network device. The tasks in a workflow may be grouped into one or more phases. Furthermore, a given task or phase in a workflow may have one or more dependencies on other tasks or phases in the workflow. For example, a dependency for a given phase may require that all tasks within a particular phase are complete before the tasks associated with that phase may be executed”, and “Universal state manager 210 generates a job identifier (job ID) for the requested workflow. Each generated job ID is universally unique and serves as the primary identifier for the requested workflow. As system components perform various tasks in furtherance of the requested workflow, universal state manager 210 correlates these tasks with the requested workflow via the unique job ID”, respectfully.
Moreover, paragraph 0044 recites “Figure 4 is a depiction of a workflow status display as provided to a user by GUI services 120 according to various embodiments. Request 410 of the status display shows information related to the requested workflow, including the job ID 310 assigned to the workflow and the name of the requested workflow. Request 410 further displays the overall state of the requested workflow (e.g., “IN_PROGRESS”), as well as the time and date the workflow was opened.”
Similarly, the claims recite aggregating status reports generated by the one or more system components; receiving, via the plugin, status reports generated by the one or more external system components; correlating each status report with a corresponding unique reference ID associated with the system component that generated the status report; generating a status of the requested automation workflow based on the status reports, receiving a request for the status of the requested automation workflow, and displaying the status of the requested automation workflow via a graphical user interface.
As such, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, receiving, aggregating, correlating, generating, and displaying status/status reports of the system components and workflow automation, merely cover commercial interactions, including business relations, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Importantly, under Step 2A Prong Two, amended independent claim 10 recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:… including instructions directing one or more system components to deploy configuration changes to one or more Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components”, thus integrating the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Contrarily, other than reciting “a plugin associated with an external computing system” in claims 19 and 20, method claims 1-9, 19 and 20 fail to recite any computer components (e.g., one or more processors) implementing each of the claimed method steps.
Moreover, under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include a plugin associated with an external computing system.
The plugin associated with an external computing system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., a plugin associated with an external computing system). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
In Finjan, the claimed invention involves a method of virus scanning that scans an application program, generates a security profile identifying any potentially suspicious code in the program, and links the security profile to the application program. The claims were held patent eligible because the court concluded that the claimed method recites specific steps that accomplish a result that realizes an improvement in computer functionality. The method represented an improvement over traditional virus scanning, which only recognized the presence of previously-identified viruses. The method also enables more flexible virus filtering and greater user customization.
Further, Visual Memory and Finjan, concerned with an enhanced computer memory system, and virus scan that generates a security profile, respectively, are both wholly unrelated to Applicant’s claimed invention. The claims in both of those cases were deemed eligible, as not being directed to an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A). The court specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. Explaining that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, the court noted that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, also are not inherently abstract. In particular, a claim directed to an improvement to computer-related technology (e.g., computer functionality) is likely not similar to claims that have previously been identified as abstract by the courts. Here, contrary to the claims as seen in Enfish, the claims provide no improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display.
Specifically, the claims of the patents at issue in Enfish describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method claims and system claims that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(t). The court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification.
Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. It was noted that the improvement does not need to be defined by reference to "physical" components. Instead, the improvement here is defined by logical structures and processes, rather than particular physical features.
Contrarily, here, there are no specification “teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements,” nor is there any improvement here defined by logical structures and processes.
The Federal Circuit stated that the Enfish claims were not ones in which general-purpose computer components are added after the fact to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation, but were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, and concluded that the Enfish claims were thus not directed to an abstract idea (under Step 2A).
However, in this case, general-purpose computer components, added after the fact to an abstract idea, do not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Additionally, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, is an example of additional elements other than those that are well‐understood, routine and conventional in the field. In that case, the claims were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third‐party merchant. The court found that the claim had additional limitations that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea. Namely, the claim recited that when a third party’s advertisement hyperlink was selected by a user on a host’s web page, the system would automatically identify the host web page, retrieve corresponding “look and feel” information from storage for the host web page and generate a hybrid web page including the merchant information from the third party web page with the “look and feel” elements of the host’s website. This was different from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol which would transport the user away from the host’s web page to the third party’s web page when the hyperlink is activated.
However, unlike the claims in DDR, which were necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, the claims here have no additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that the cited portions of Elenbaas et al. do not disclose one or more unique identifiers that are self-generated by one or more system components that perform at least a subset of the tasks specified in the one or more phases. While Elenbaas et al. may disclose a unique number identifying a job, task, or subtask, this is distinct from the claim limitations reciting that "each of the one or more unique reference IDs is self- generated by one of the one or more system components that performs at least a subset of the tasks specified in the one or more phases." Rather, the various job/task IDs of Elenbaas et. al. are created by workflow engine 258, while the tasks disclosed in Elenbaas et. al. are performed by human workers. Elenbaas et. al., Abstract, paragraph [0117], and paragraphs [0119]-[0123].
Further, claim 1 as presently amended recites the limitation "tasks including instructions to deploy configuration changes to Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components." A careful review of the Elenbaas reference cited by the Examiner shows that Elenbaas does not disclose the above limitations of amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully submits that, as described in the updated rejection, Elenbaas et al, in view of Renzi et al, in further view of Blassin et al indeed disclose “each of the one or more unique reference IDs is self- generated by one of the one or more system components” and "tasks including instructions to deploy configuration changes to Information Technology (IT) infrastructure components."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 March 6, 2026