DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed February 10, 2026. Claims 1 and 15 are amended. Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps for “identifying trigger criteria” and “checking a status of the task” are similar to the elements of SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide any argument or rationale underpinning in support of the assertion that the claimed elements are analogous to the elements of SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Instead, Applicant alleges, without any underlying support, that the elements are analogous. Further, paragraphs 39 and 66 of Applicant’s Specification indicate that “identifying trigger criteria” requires no more than evaluating when trigger conditions are met (See, Spec. ¶ 39) and “checking a status of the task” requires no more than “viewing the progress of a project” (See, Spec. ¶ 66). In view of Applicant’s Specification, Examiner maintains that evaluating conditions and monitoring progress of a project recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper, and as a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant next asserts that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity because “the claims recite specific interactions between network components and network-rooted functionality.” Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the elements upon which Applicant relies are additional elements that are addressed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. MPEP 2106.07(a) sets forth the process for formulating a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and indicates that “the rejection should identify the judicial exception” under Step 2A Prong One. MPEP 2106.07(a) does not, however, indicate that a proper rejection includes evaluating additional elements under Step 2A Prong One. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because the inclusion of additional elements within a claim does not preclude a finding that a claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant asserts that the claimed invention improves conventional technology. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s remarks note that existing systems “may not cover ‘interdepartmental processes, 3rd party data integration, re-purposing of data from existing products, integration to other systems, intelligent data capture including digital assistant, among others,’” and paragraph 3 of Applicant’s Specification states that existing automated workflow applications “generally” focus on R&D without covering the listed integration functions. As a result, the Specification does not support Applicant’s characterization of the alleged technical problem because the Specification expressly indicates that the listed integration functions were already implemented in at least some automation systems at the time of Applicant’s filing. Further, to the extent that Applicant asserts that flowtime website monitoring embodies a technical improvement, Examiner notes that paragraph 65 of Applicant’s Specification discloses the flowtime functionality in general terms without identifying any technical improvements. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant next asserts that the claims “apply the alleged judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant’s remarks do not provide any rationale underpinning in support of Applicant’s assertion. Instead, Applicant asserts, without any evidence or explanation, that the amended elements address technical problems. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant asserts that the claims include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the recited abstract idea when considered in view of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com. Examiner disagrees. As noted by Applicant, the claims of DDR Holdings were deemed patent eligible because the claims were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”. Here, the problem solved by Applicant’s claims does not specifically arise in the realm of computer networks. As noted in the Background of Applicant’s Specification, the pending claims address problems arising in the realm of workflow execution, including manual workflow execution. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because the pending claims address business problems that do not specifically arise in the realm of computer networks.
Similarly, Applicant asserts that the claims include an unconventional arrangement of additional elements that is analogous to the claims of BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s remarks do not provide any rationale underpinning in support of Applicant’s assertion. Instead, Applicant initially concedes that “the individual limitations may appear to be generic” and subsequently asserts that a series of limitations are unconventional without providing any argument to explain why the claimed elements are unconventional. Additionally, Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification does not disclose any unconventional improvements embodied in the combination of identified elements. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant asserts that the rejection of record does not analyze the additional elements as an ordered combination. Examiner disagrees and notes that the rejection of record expressly considers the additional elements as an ordered combination and finds that considering the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not commensurate with the rejection of record and are not persuasive.
Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
However, to the extent that Applicant asserts that the reference to Porter does not disclose “generating an approval link” because the claimed feature does not require accessing the interface, Examiner disagrees. Examiner submits that Applicant’s remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claims because the claimed element does not specify how the approval link is accessed by the destination party. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
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. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “identifying a task from a series of tasks associated with a project”; “determining a type of the project and to-be-collected information associated with the task”; “identifying trigger criteria associated with the task”; “in response to data associated with the task trigger satisfying the trigger criteria, automatically activating the task”; “checking a status of the task to enable a monitor of a progress of the task”; and “upon detection of a completion of the task, an approval to allow the destination party to provide an input whether the project should be continued to a next task associated with the project”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for managing tasks within a workflow. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 15 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 15 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–14 and 16–20 further describe the process for managing tasks within a workflow and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–14 and 16–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer, an automated digital workflow application, a master data hub, a mobile portal, a flowtime website, a software-based robot, and steps for generating a user interface compris[ing] one or more interactive elements, interrogating a master data hub, causing the user interface to be displayed, and generating an approval link [that] is transmitted. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 15 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 15 further includes a processor and memory, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 15 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3, 8, 12–14, and 17 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include interactive elements (claims 2–3), receiving inputs (claims 8 and 17), converting inputs to an adaptor bus’s common format (claim 12), wherein inputs are integrated into one or more applications for data synchronization (claim 13), and storing data (claim 14). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of claims 2–3 and 12–13 do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the elements of claims 8, 14, and 17 embody insignificant extrasolution activities to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2–3, 8, 12–14, and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4–7, 9–11, 16, and 18–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–7, 9–11, 16, and 18–20 depend. As a result, claims 4–7, 9–11, 16, and 18–20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer, an automated digital workflow application, a master data hub, a mobile portal, a flowtime website, a software-based robot, and steps for generating a user interface compris[ing] one or more interactive elements, interrogating a master data hub, causing the user interface to be displayed, and generating an approval link [that] is transmitted. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 15 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 15 further includes a processor and memory, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 15 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3, 8, 12–14, and 17 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include interactive elements (claims 2–3), receiving inputs (claims 8 and 17), converting inputs to an adaptor bus’s common format (claim 12), wherein inputs are integrated into one or more applications for data synchronization (claim 13), and storing data (claim 14). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the elements of claims 2–3 and 12–13 do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the elements of claims 8, 14, and 17 embody well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2–3, 8, 12–14, and 17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4–7, 9–11, 16, and 18–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–7, 9–11, 16, and 18–20 depend. As a result, claims 4–7, 9–11, 16, and 18–20 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1–8, and 12–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (U.S. 11,106,331) in view of CHANG et al. (U.S. 2024/0079121), and in further view of CAREY et al. (U.S. 2022/0207454) and Nayak et al. (U.S. 2022/0230112).
Claims 1 and 15: Porter discloses a computer-implemented method (See FIG. 11) for managing a digital workflow, comprising:
identifying a task from a series of tasks associated with a project (See FIG. 4 and col. 15, ll. 18–31, wherein a task identifier identifies a task within a workflow);
determining a type of the project and to-be-collected information associated with the task (See FIG. 4 and col. 14, l. 55–col. 15, l. 17, wherein each identified task is associated with questions to be answered, and wherein each workflow is categorized according to group);
generating a user interface for presenting in an automated digital workflow application, wherein the user interface comprises one or more user interactive elements determined based on the type of the project and the to-be-collected information associated with the task (See FIG. 4 and col. 14, l. 55–col. 15, l. 17, wherein the UI displays the workflow application and includes a plurality of interactive elements according to the identified workflow grouping and associated requirements; see also col. 19, ll. 57–60, wherein program instructions are disclosed in the context of applications and software applications);
identifying trigger criteria associated with the task (See col. 9, l. 45–col. 10, l. 10, wherein each workflow is defined according to triggers that begin the workflow and/or various tasks within the workflow);
interrogating a database associated with the digital workflow to detect data associated with a task trigger (See col. 14, ll. 44–54, in view of col. 18, ll. 3–7, wherein triggers are stored in a database in association with tasks, and wherein trigger notifications are implicitly generated by querying the database in response to task completion information);
in response to data associated with the task trigger satisfying the trigger criteria, automatically activating the task by causing the user interface to be displayed in the automated digital workflow application (See FIG. 4 and col. 14, l. 55–col. 15, l. 17, wherein the user interface is generated in response to a task trigger);
checking a status of the task through a website that is configured to enable a monitor of a progress of the task (See FIG. 4, FIG. 6, col. 15, ll. 32–50, and col. 17, ll. 1–24, in view of col. 23, l. 57–col. 24, l. 10, wherein task progress is monitored using a web-based interface); and
generating an approval link upon a detection of a completion of the task, wherein the approval link is transmitted to a destination party to allow the destination party to provide an input whether the project should be continued to a next task associated with the project (See col. 13, ll. 7–16, wherein a link to the workflow is sent upon completion of the task, and col. 14, ll. 20–54, wherein the next assigned user may utilize decision options, including requiring a step backward to repeat or amend a completed task). Porter does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Chang discloses interrogating a master data hub (See paragraphs 30–31, in view of paragraphs 64–67, wherein workflow automation is disclosed in the context of interrogating a datahub).
Porter discloses a system directed to managing workflows using an interactive display. Chang discloses a system directed to managing execution of an automated workflow. Each reference discloses a system for managing workflow execution. The technique of utilizing a data hub is applicable to the system of Porter as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing workflow execution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Chang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chang to the teachings of Porter would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate workflow execution management into similar systems. Further, applying a data hub to Porter would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results. Porter and Chang do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Carey discloses a flowtime website (See paragraph 56, wherein flowtime tracking is performed in the interface; see also paragraph 59, wherein a manager interface facilitates flowtime monitoring with respect to each task).
As disclosed above, Porter discloses a system directed to managing workflows using an interactive display, and Chang discloses a system directed to managing execution of an automated workflow. Carey discloses a system directed to tracking and managing workflow execution. Each reference discloses a system for managing workflow execution. The technique of flowtime monitoring is applicable to the systems of Porter and Chang as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing workflow execution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Carey would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Carey to the teachings of Porter and Chang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate workflow execution management into similar systems. Further, applying flowtime monitoring to Porter and Chang would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results. Porter, Chang, and Carey do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Nayak discloses wherein the activated task is presented in the automated digital workflow application through a mobile portal that allows a mobile device to remotely connect with an organization network to access or take action on certain to-be-completed processes associated with the task (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 36, wherein users perform tasks using a user portal; see also paragraph 41); and
wherein the status of the task is checked by a software-based robot that emulates human actions (See paragraph 18, in view of paragraphs 14–15, wherein workflow status is monitored by the automated system).
As disclosed above, Porter discloses a system directed to managing workflows using an interactive display, Chang discloses a system directed to managing execution of an automated workflow, and Carey discloses a system directed to tracking and managing workflow execution. Nayak discloses a system directed to managing workflow automation. Each reference discloses a system for managing workflow execution. The technique of utilizing a portal and software automation is applicable to the systems of Porter, Chang, and Carey as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing workflow execution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nayak would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Nayak to the teachings of Porter, Chang, and Carey would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate workflow execution management into similar systems. Further, applying a portal and software automation to Porter, Chang, and Carey would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved management and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 15, Porter discloses a processor and a memory, coupled to the processor, configured to store executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (See FIG. 11 and col. 22, ll. 4–22).
Claim 2: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user interactive elements comprise one or more of a smart form, a table, a drop-down menu, a check box, an attachment link, an upload link, or a free text input field (See FIG. 4 and FIG. 6).
Claim 3: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that claim 3 is directed to a method claim but does not include any method steps. As a result, the elements of claim 3 defining input fields as being “for inputting data related to rule-driven attributes” are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not affect the recited step for “generating a user interface”. The elements have been addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user interactive elements comprise one or more user input fields for inputting data (See FIG. 3A and col. 12, ll. 3–6, wherein fillable form inputs are disclosed). Porter, Chang, and Carey do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Nayak discloses inputting data related to rule-driven attributes (See paragraph 13, in view of paragraph 1, wherein task input parameters are defined in the context of compliance with legal regulations and industry standards).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nayak would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that claim 4 is directed to a method claim but does not include any method steps. As a result, the elements of claim 4 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not affect the recited step for “generating a user interface” and have been addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Porter, Chang, and Carey do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 4.
Nayak discloses wherein the rule-driven attributes are defined according to one or more rules associated with a specific industry (See paragraph 13, in view of paragraph 1, wherein task input parameters are defined in the context of compliance with legal regulations and industry standards).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nayak would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 3.
Claims 5 and 16: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein automatically activating the task comprises automatically activating each of the series of tasks according to a predefined path (See FIG. 3B and col. 14, ll. 11–43, wherein each workflow is associated with a defined path; see also col. 9, l. 45–col. 10, l. 10, wherein each workflow is defined according to triggers that begin the workflow and/or various tasks within the workflow).
Claim 6: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the data associated with the task trigger comprise the type of project and user inputs associated with one or more other tasks of the series of tasks associated with the project (See FIG. 1 and col. 9, l. 45–col. 10, l. 10, wherein triggers are associated with inputs specific to a given task, and col. 14, l. 55–col. 15, l. 17, wherein each task definition and trigger are associated with a workflow category; see also FIG. 4).
Claim 7: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the user inputs associated with one or more other tasks of the series of tasks comprise user inputs associated with one or more tasks preceding the task according to the predefined path (See col. 14, l. 55–col. 15, l. 17, in view of FIG. 3B and col. 14, ll. 11–43, wherein each workflow is associated with a defined path; see also col. 9, l. 45–col. 10, l. 10, wherein triggers are associated with inputs specific to a given task).
Claims 8 and 17: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving user inputs through the one or more user interactive elements in the user interface, wherein the user inputs reflect a user response to the to-be-collected information associated with the task (See FIG. 4, wherein inputs are received in response to task input prompts; see also FIG. 3A and col. 11, l. 50–col. 12, l. 21).
Claim 12: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: converting the user inputs reflecting the user response to an adaptor bus's common format (See col. 8, ll. 21–24, in view of col. 19, ll. 51–64, wherein request data is formatted into a third-party format with respect to both API protocols and network adapters/integrated circuitry).
Claim 13: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that claim 13 is directed to a method claim but does not include any method steps. As a result, the elements of claim 13 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not affect the recited step for “converting” and have been addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Although Porter discloses data synchronization (See col. 5, ll. 48–64, wherein the disclosure is implemented in the context of data synchronization), Porter does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Chang discloses wherein the user inputs are integrated into one or other applications for data synchronization (See paragraph 33, wherein the disclosed API orchestrate industry standards with respect to dataset integration).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Chang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 14: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: storing data associated with the user inputs in the master data hub associated with the digital workflow (See FIG. 11 and col. 14, ll. 44–54; see also col. 16, ll. 1–10). Porter does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Chang discloses storing data in the master data hub (See paragraphs 64–67, wherein files are uploaded to a data hub).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Chang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 9–11 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (U.S. 11,106,331) in view of CHANG et al. (U.S. 2024/0079121), and in further view of CAREY et al. (U.S. 2022/0207454), Nayak et al. (U.S. 2022/0230112), and STIFFLER et al. (U.S. 2014/0337071).
Claims 9 and 18: As disclosed above, Porter, Chang, Carey, and Nayak disclose the elements of claim 1. Porter, Chang, Carey, and Nayak do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 9.
Stiffler discloses determining whether the user inputs reflecting the user response is valid by checking whether the user inputs conform to an industry-specific project type (See paragraphs 82 and 125, wherein input validation is performed with respect to a data type of the entities and fields in the form).
As disclosed above, Porter discloses a system directed to managing workflows using an interactive display, Chang discloses a system directed to managing execution of an automated workflow, Carey discloses a system directed to tracking and managing workflow execution, and Nayak discloses a system directed to managing workflow automation. Stiffler discloses a system directed to processing requests through workflow applications. Each reference discloses a system for managing workflow execution. The technique of utilizing response validation is applicable to the systems of Porter, Chang, Carey, and Nayak as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing workflow execution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stiffler would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stiffler to the teachings of Porter, Chang, Carey, and Nayak would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate workflow execution management into similar systems. Further, applying response validations to Porter, Chang, Carey, and Nayak would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claims 10 and 19: Porter, Chang, Carey, and Nayak do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 10.
Stiffler discloses identifying criteria for determining whether to approve or reject the user inputs reflecting the user response to the to-be-collected information associated with the task (See paragraph 125, wherein responses are validated against validation conditions); and
determining whether to approve or reject the user inputs reflecting the user response by checking whether the user inputs satisfy the criteria (See paragraph 125, wherein responses are approved or rejected upon validation against validation conditions).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stiffler would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 9.
Claims 11 and 20: Porter discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: sending an email to a designated party (See col. 14, ll. 44–54, wherein workflow tasks are performed within a client email system). Porter, Chang, Carey, and Nayak do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Stiffler discloses sending a one-click action to a designated party for approval or rejection (See paragraph 102, wherein “the end user only needs to approve/reject a request without entering any additional information into the action form”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stiffler would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 9.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rusano et al. (EP 3,800,595) discloses a system directed to managing RPA execution of workflows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623