DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/492,271 filed on 10/23/2023. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are pending in this application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/492,271 filed 10/23/2023 claims foreign priority to 10-2022-0141772, filed 10/28/2022.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed July 22, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 15, and 18, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claims 6, 8, 11, and 18 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.
101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “The claims do not merely display or organize information. For example, amended claim 1 requires extracting, from each selected work request content, classification criteria including a type of function associated with that work request content; grouping the selected work request contents based on the extracted classification criteria; generating a plurality of user interface cards respectively corresponding to the resulting groups, with each card including an interactive element for performing a function indicated by the classification criteria of the respective group; and, for a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmitting handling results for multiple work request contents in response to selection of the interactive element.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/22/2026, page 8]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the claim limitations constitute data manipulation and presentation that are part of the recited abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer functionality or another technology. The claims do not recite any specific technological improvement in the manner in which the computer, user interface, processor, or memory operates. Instead, the recited functions are performed using generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “the Office Action reasons that the processors, memory, user interface, and interactive element are generic computer components and therefore merely tie the alleged abstract idea to a computer environment. The amended claims, however, do not rely on the generic nature of those components in isolation. The claims require a particular ordered relationship among the selected work request contents, the extracted function-type classification criteria, the function- type-based groups, and the function-specific user interface controls. The claimed improvement lies in that particular computer-implemented control structure and interaction, not in an alleged improvement to the processor or memory hardware itself.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/22/2026, page 9]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the recited ordering of the steps reflects a logical sequence for implementing the abstract idea and does not by itself, constitute a technological improvement. The recited computer components remain generic because the claims do not require any particular processor architecture, memory arrangement, specialized user interface technology, or unconventional interaction mechanism. The claims merely recite conventional computer components performing their ordinary functions, namely processing data, storing instructions, displaying information, receiving user input, and executing functions in response to user selections.
Applicant’s identification of an ordered relationship among the claim elements does not demonstrate an improvement to computer technology. Rather, the ordered relationship defines how information is selected, categorized, displayed, and acted upon within a user interface. Such an arrangement uses a computer as a tool to perform the claimed abstract information management process, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are properly considered as a whole. The ordered combination applies any alleged abstract idea in a specific work-request processing interface in which executable functions are structurally associated with corresponding function-type groups and are invoked through controls provided on the corresponding user interface cards or group elements. This arrangement reduces repeated user operations and enables multiple work request contents associated with the same executable function type to be processed through the corresponding function-specific user interface control. Accordingly, the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/22/2026, page 9]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors, a user interface, a plurality of user interface, each user interface card including an interactive element, and the interactive element included in a user interface, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence, cited any portion of the Specification, nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no processors, memory, user interface, interactive element, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to results for two or more of the work request contents, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
Moreover, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
It is also noted that the claim limitations are considered apply it on a computer because they recite limitations related to organizing classifying, presenting, and transmitting information and merely instruct a generic computer to perform these steps. The processors, memory, user interface are standard components that do not improve computer functionality, but simply execute the abstract organizational process.
Lastly, in response to Applicant’s argument that “The ordered combination applies any alleged abstract idea in a specific work-request processing interface in which executable functions are structurally associated with corresponding function-type groups and are invoked through controls provided on the corresponding user interface cards or group elements. This arrangement reduces repeated user operations and enables multiple work request contents associated with the same executable function type to be processed through the corresponding function-specific user interface control,” it is noted that associating functions with grouped information and providing corresponding user interface controls does not improve computer functionality or provide a technological improvement, but instead facilitates user interaction with the organized information. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “The amendments likewise address the Office Action's Step 2B analysis. The claims recite more than merely using a generic computer to classify information and display a result. In amended claim 1, each user interface card includes an interactive element for performing the function indicated by the classification criteria of the respective group, and selection of the interactive element for a group associated with the first function causes handling results for multiple work request contents in that group to be collectively transmitted. Considered as an ordered combination, these limitations define a specific technological interaction among function-type classification, function-type-based grouping, a corresponding user interface control, and execution of the corresponding function.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/22/2026, pages 9-10]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims merely product a result in the form of “results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents,” which is not an improvement to the one or more processors, memory, or a user interface. These elements have been considered individually and in combination, or any other system or technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the one or more processors, memory, user interface, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant submits “Amended claim 1 now requires, inter alia, extracting classification criteria including a type of function associated with each selected work request content; grouping the selected work request contents based on the extracted classification criteria; generating "a plurality of user interface cards respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups," with "each user interface card including an interactive element for performing a function indicated by the classification criteria of a respective group"; and, when the classification criteria for a group indicates the first function, collectively transmitting handling results for multiple work request contents in that group in response to selection of the interactive element. The cited combination does not teach or suggest this claimed relationship.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/22/2026, pages 10-11]
In response, it is noted that Applicant's amendments are sufficient to overcome the §103
rejection. Reasons for allowance (over the prior art) are provided below.
13. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
14. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
Claim 11 was amended to recite “The method of claim 9, wherein rendering the interactive user interface cards includes displaying the classification criteria and the count of work request contents for each group.” However, claim 9 recites “further comprising determining, for each group, a count of the work request contents included in the group.” Claim 11 should recite “The method of claim 9, wherein rendering the interactive user interface cards includes displaying the classification criteria and the count of THE work request contents for each group” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the apparatus (claims 1-2, 5-7) and methods (claims 8-20) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-2 and 5-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing work requests, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors to: display a work request content list, wherein the work request content list includes a plurality of work request contents, each work request content associated with at least one function for requesting handling by a user; receive a user selection of two or more work request contents from among a plurality of work request contents enumerated in the displayed work request content list; extract, from each of the selected two or more work request contents, classification criteria including a type of function associated with the respective work request content, the type of function including one or more of: a first function for transmitting a handling result for work request contents, a second function for moving to a page to enter information or to correct previously entered information, and a third function for a detailed search with respect to work request contents; group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria; generate and render, on a user interface, a plurality of user interface cards respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups, each user interface card including an interactive element for performing a function indicated by the classification criteria of a respective group and displaying the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group; and in response to selection of the interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents. These steps are organizing human activity because the claim recites steps for managing work requests by receiving user selections, classifying and grouping work request contents based on criteria, and presenting those groupings, and may also be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as those discussed above and are therefore found to recite the same or substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1/8/15, the additional elements are: one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors, a user interface, a plurality of user interface, each user interface card including an interactive element, and the interactive element included in a user interface (claim 1); a user interface, interactive user interface cards, each interactive user interface card, at least one selectable element, and a user interface card (claim 8); a user interface group element displayed on a user interface, each user interface group element, and an actionable control (claim 15). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the steps for display and transmit are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claims 1/8/15, the additional elements are: one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors, a user interface, a plurality of user interface, each user interface card including an interactive element, and the interactive element included in a user interface (claim 1); a user interface, interactive user interface cards, each interactive user interface card, at least one selectable element, and a user interface card (claim 8); a user interface group element displayed on a user interface, each user interface group element, and an actionable control (claim 15). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that virtually any type of computing device under the sun can be used to implement the claimed invention (Specification at paragraph [0100]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.). Next, the steps for display and transmit are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data), which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2 and 5-7 recite “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify, for each group, a count of the work request contents included in the respective group,” “wherein each function associated with the work request contents is implemented in a form,” “display the classification criteria and the count of work request contents included in the corresponding group,” “navigate to a detailed search screen listing the work request contents of that group,” however these limitations cover activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping and also recite steps that may also be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. The other dependent claims have been evaluated as well, but similar to claims 2 and 5-7, these claims also recite details of the abstract ideas themselves accompanied by, at most, generic computer implementation, which is not enough to transform the claims into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976. Dependent claims 5, 6, 7, 12, and 14 recite additional elements of: a button displayed on the user interface, each user interface card, the user interface card corresponding to a group associated with the third function. However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art, Wahl et al. (US 2020/0311680 A1), Blatz et al. (US 2020/0379727 A1), Hicks et al. (US 2014/0331187 A1), and Vairamohan (US 2017/0364213 A1), collectively teach features for displaying a work request content list, wherein the work request content list includes a plurality of work request contents, each work request content associated with at least one function for requesting handling by a user; receiving a user selection of two or more work request contents from among a plurality of work request contents enumerated in the displayed work request content list; extract, from each of the selected two or more work request contents, classification criteria including a type of function associated with the respective work request content, the type of function including one or more of: a first function for transmitting a handling result for work request contents, a second function for moving to a page to enter information or to correct previously entered information, and a third function for a detailed search with respect to work request contents; group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria; and in response to selection of an interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents.
[See Office Action mailed 04/30/2026 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to amended independent claim 1, while Hicks teaches an interactive element for performing a function (paragraph 0030, discussing that the Configure virtual button may allow for additional configuration of the Input Used to Group Objects settings option. For example, after selecting this corresponding Configure virtual button, the user may be able to configure where the bundle will be located after the objects are grouped. Numerous different user input characteristics may affect whether the group mode grouping function is invoked; paragraph 0051, discussing that FIGS. 3c-c''' illustrate an example group mode configuration where holding user input used to group objects performs an action...In this example, the user input is a swipe gesture, which is held to perform an action…After the swipe and hold gesture is performed, a hold action may be invoked, such as displaying the pop-up menu of options as shown in FIG. 3c'. The group mode swipe and hold gesture may cause some other action (such as invoking a particular interaction), which may be user-configurable or hard-coded. Continuing with FIG. 3c'', since the swipe and hold gesture action in this example causes a pop-up menu of options to be displayed, the user can then select one of the pop-up menu options...In this specific example, the user chose the Group into Bundle option, which caused the preselected objects to be grouped into a bundle as shown in FIG. 3c'''; paragraphs 0052, 0060), and newly discovered art, Azmoon, Pub. No.: EP 3241158 A1, describes a visual task board including a user interface card (abstract, discussing systems, apparatuses, and methods for displaying a visual task board comprising a permitted assignment user interface are disclosed. Displaying a permitted assignment user interface may comprise generating a first card representing a first record, wherein the first record comprises an information element that has a first value of a visualization metric, generating an output for display, the output comprising a first lane representing the first value of the visualization metric and comprising the first card), Wahl et al., Blatz et al., Hicks et al., and Vairamohan, and the other prior art of record does not teach generate and render, on a user interface, a plurality of user interface cards respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups, each user interface card including an interactive element for performing a function indicated by the classification criteria of a respective group and displaying the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group, as required by amended claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “An apparatus for grouping work request contents selected from a work request content list, the apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors to: display a work request content list, wherein the work request content list includes a plurality of work request contents, each work request content associated with at least one function for requesting handling by a user; receive a user selection of two or more work request contents from among a plurality of work request contents enumerated in the displayed work request content list; extract, from each of the selected two or more work request contents, classification criteria including a type of function associated with the respective work request content, the type of function including one or more of: a first function for transmitting a handling result for work request contents, a second function for moving to a page to enter information or to correct previously entered information, and a third function for a detailed search with respect to work request contents; group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria; generate and render, on a user interface, a plurality of user interface cards respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups, each user interface card including an interactive element for performing a function indicated by the classification criteria of a respective group and displaying the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group; and in response to selection of ” as recited in amended claim 1, “A method for grouping work request contents selected from a work request content list, the method comprising: displaying a work request content list, wherein the work request content list includes a plurality of work request contents, each work request content associated with at least one function for requesting handling by a user; receiving a selection of two or more work request contents from among a plurality of work request contents enumerated in the displayed work request content list; extracting, from each of the selected two or more work request contents, classification criteria including a type of function associated with the respective work request content, the type of function including one or more of: a first function for transmitting a handling result for work request contents, a second function for moving to a page to enter information or to correct previously entered information, and a third function for a detailed search with respect to work request contents; grouping the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria; rendering, on a user interface, interactive user interface cards respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups, each interactive user interface card displaying the classification criteria for a corresponding group and the work request contents included in the corresponding group and including at least one selectable element for performing a function indicated by the classification criteria of the corresponding group; and in response to selection of a selectable element among the at least one selectable element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmitting handling results for two or more work request contents included in that group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents,” as recited in amended claim 8, and “A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: displaying a work request content list including work request contents, each work request content being associated with a plurality of functions including: first functions for transmitting a handling result of the work request, second functions for editing information of the work request, and third functions for searching of the work request; receiving a selection of two or more work requests from among the work request contents displayed in the work request content list; extracting, from the selected two or more work requests, classification criteria corresponding to at least one of the first functions, the second functions, and the third functions, and combining respective work requests of the selected two or more work requests into groups based on a shared extracted classification criteria; and generating, for each of the groups, a user interface group element displayed on a user interface, each user interface group element corresponding to a respective one of the classification criteria and displaying the respective one of the classification criteria and the work requests included in a corresponding group and comprising an actionable control that, when activated for a user interface group element corresponding to a classification criteria associated with one of the first functions, facilitates batch execution of the one of the first functions to collectively transmit handling results for two or more work requests in the corresponding group,” as recited in amended claim 15, thus rendering claims 1-2 and 5-20 as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 11 is objected to due to minor informalities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barth et al., Patent No.: US 8,554,586 B2 – describes managing consistent interfaces for business objects across heterogeneous systems.
Napoli, Pub. No.: US 2018/0225795 A1 – describes grouping work orders according to one or more characteristics of the work orders.
Chiu, Dickson KW, Qing Li, and Kamalakar Karlapalem. "Web interface-driven cooperative exception handling in ADOME workflow management system." Information Systems 26.2 (2001): 93-120 – describes a workflow management system tec that supports workflow adaptation through exceptions.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights