Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 08/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been amended.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 20070067373 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20230108180 A1), hereinafter referred to as Higgins and Lee, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Higgins discloses A method ([0109] In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention may be implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions referred to as "programs." An application program typically includes one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer. Please note that the computer implementing the embodiments of the invention corresponds to Applicant’s method.) comprising:
receiving a request during a process stream ([0179] The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller). Please note that the model responding to instructions to change state corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a request during a process stream.);
determining the request is indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream ([0209] During the execution, the method processor dynamically and selectively loads applications components as part of the running process of the method processor. Thus, the capability of the method processor to process different workflows can change dynamically during the execution, through loading and unloading the application components. Please note that the dynamically loading application components as part of the running process during execution corresponds to Applicant’s determining the request is indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream, as in responding to instructions to change state, the system would be able to carry out a data change being utilized for the process stream, i.e., change the capability to process the workflow dynamically.);
Higgins does not explicitly disclose determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream;
analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream and the data change being utilized for the process stream;
responsive to determining a modification is required to at least one workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context, determining the modification performable on the at least one workflow step from the process stream;
and performing the modification on the at least one workflow step from the process stream.
However, Lee discloses determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow via an indication corresponds to Applicant’s determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream.)
analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow, where the updating is based on the response corresponds to Applicant’s analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream.)
and the data change being utilized for the process stream ([0073] At step 525, first microservice 520 may process the transaction objects it retrieved from the SDP according to processing logic associated with first microservice 520. Processing a transaction object may include: reviewing, assessing, analyzing, updating, adding to, removing, and/or any other suitable processing of the transaction data, addenda data, and/or transaction metadata associated with the transaction object. Please note that processing transaction objects according to processing logic including analyzing the associated transaction data and metadata corresponds to Applicant’s analyzing a context for the data change being utilized for the process stream.);
responsive to determining a modification is required to at least one workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context, determining the modification performable on the at least one workflow step from the process stream ([0074] At step 527, first microservice 520 may update a current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate completion of the processing corresponding to first microservice 520. In some embodiments, the current workflow stage may be updated to different next step values depending on the processing by first microservice 520. For example, as discussed with respect to workflow 400 in FIG. 4, a microservice may update the current workflow stage of a transaction object to route it to different next microservices depending on whether it meets certain criteria. [0075] At step 529, first microservice 520 may put the updated transaction object back to the SDP. The updated transaction object may have one or more changed values [...], in addition to the updated current workflow stage. Please note that the determination whether the current workflow stage of a transaction object meets certain criteria prior to updating it to route it to different next microservices corresponds to Applicant’s determining the modification performable on the workflow step from the process stream responsive to determining a modification is required to the workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context.);
and performing the modification on the at least one workflow step from the process stream ([0074] At step 527, first microservice 520 may update a current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate completion of the processing corresponding to first microservice 520. In some embodiments, the current workflow stage may be updated to different next step values depending on the processing by first microservice 520. For example, as discussed with respect to workflow 400 in FIG. 4, a microservice may update the current workflow stage of a transaction object to route it to different next microservices depending on whether it meets certain criteria. [0075] At step 529, first microservice 520 may put the updated transaction object back to the SDP. The updated transaction object may have one or more changed values [...], in addition to the updated current workflow stage. Please note that putting the updated transaction object back to the SDP in addition to the updated current workflow stage corresponds to Applicant’s performing the modification on the workflow step from the process stream.).
Higgins and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer workflow request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higgins to incorporate the teachings of Lee to modify the system receiving a request during a process stream indicative of a data change being utilized for the data stream to have the request indicate a reversal of progress of the process as well, analyze a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream and data change, determine the modification performable on the workflow step, and perform the modification on the workflow step, allowing for improved system flexibility via dynamic changing of the workflow step in the process stream, as described in Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 1, Higgins further discloses initializing the process stream based on a trigger event, where the process stream includes the plurality of workflow steps performable across a plurality of applications ([0166] Further, in one embodiment, the method processor may lunch or start workflow applications in response to external events, such as […] the start or end of an event, such as the start or end of a module or a workflow application. Please note that starting the workflow application in response to a start event corresponds to Applicant’s initializing the process stream including the plurality of workflow steps performable across a plurality of applications based on a trigger event.).
Regarding Claim 3, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 2, Lee further discloses reversing from a current workflow step to a previous workflow step in the process stream, wherein the previous workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that re-executing the workflow by the prior microservice corresponds to Applicant’s reversing from a current workflow step to a previous workflow step in the process stream, wherein the previous workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, because in this process the prior microservice is inherently the previous workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, i.e., the point at which the addenda data writing is required.);
storing data associated with the process stream between the current workflow step and the previous workflow step ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that writing additional data to the transaction object by the pause microservice corresponds to Applicant’s storing data associated with the process stream between the current workflow step and the previous workflow step);
and re-initializing a new process stream from the previous workflow step based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that re-executing the workflow by the prior microservice corresponds to Applicant’s re-initializing a new process stream from the previous workflow step based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 4, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 2, Lee further discloses reversing from a current workflow step to a first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream based on the data change being utilized for the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that setting the workflow stage to INIT after additional data is written to the transaction object corresponds to Applicant’s reversing from a current workflow step to a first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream based on the data change being utilized for the process stream);
and re-initializing a new process stream from the first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that restarting the workflow by setting the workflow stage to INIT corresponds to Applicant’s re-initializing a new process stream from the first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 5, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 2, Lee further discloses altering a future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream, wherein the future workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that updating the paused transaction object prior to resuming processing by advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s altering a future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream, wherein the future workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, because in this process the future workflow step that the processing is advanced to is inherently one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, i.e., the point at which the addenda data writing is required.);
and initializing a new process stream from the future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s initializing a new process stream from the future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 8, Higgins discloses A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable mediums; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage mediums to perform operations comprising: ([0109] In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention may be implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions referred to as "programs." An application program typically includes one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer. Please note that the sequence of instructions referred to as programs stored in storage devices in a computer corresponds to Applicant’s computer program product comprising computer readable mediums and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage mediums to perform operations.),
receiving a request during a process stream([0179] The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller). Please note that the model responding to instructions to change state corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a request during a process stream.);
determining the request is indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream ([0209] During the execution, the method processor dynamically and selectively loads applications components as part of the running process of the method processor. Thus, the capability of the method processor to process different workflows can change dynamically during the execution, through loading and unloading the application components. Please note that the dynamically loading application components as part of the running process during execution corresponds to Applicant’s determining the request is indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream, as in responding to instructions to change state, the system would be able to carry out a data change being utilized for the process stream, i.e., change the capability to process the workflow dynamically.);
Higgins does not explicitly disclose determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream;
analyzing a context for the reversal of progress of the process stream and the data change being utilized for the process stream;
responsive to determining a modification is required to at least one workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context, determining the modification performable on the at least one workflow step from the process stream;
and performing the modification on the at least one workflow step from the process stream.
However, Lee discloses determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow via an indication corresponds to Applicant’s determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream.)
analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow, where the updating is based on the response corresponds to Applicant’s analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream.)
and the data change being utilized for the process stream ([0073] At step 525, first microservice 520 may process the transaction objects it retrieved from the SDP according to processing logic associated with first microservice 520. Processing a transaction object may include: reviewing, assessing, analyzing, updating, adding to, removing, and/or any other suitable processing of the transaction data, addenda data, and/or transaction metadata associated with the transaction object. Please note that processing transaction objects according to processing logic including analyzing the associated transaction data and metadata corresponds to Applicant’s analyzing a context for the data change being utilized for the process stream.);
responsive to determining a modification is required to at least one workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context, determining the modification performable on the at least one workflow step from the process stream ([0074] At step 527, first microservice 520 may update a current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate completion of the processing corresponding to first microservice 520. In some embodiments, the current workflow stage may be updated to different next step values depending on the processing by first microservice 520. For example, as discussed with respect to workflow 400 in FIG. 4, a microservice may update the current workflow stage of a transaction object to route it to different next microservices depending on whether it meets certain criteria. [0075] At step 529, first microservice 520 may put the updated transaction object back to the SDP. The updated transaction object may have one or more changed values [...], in addition to the updated current workflow stage. Please note that the determination whether the current workflow stage of a transaction object meets certain criteria prior to updating it to route it to different next microservices corresponds to Applicant’s determining the modification performable on the workflow step from the process stream responsive to determining a modification is required to the workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context.);
and performing the modification on the at least one workflow step from the process stream ([0074] At step 527, first microservice 520 may update a current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate completion of the processing corresponding to first microservice 520. In some embodiments, the current workflow stage may be updated to different next step values depending on the processing by first microservice 520. For example, as discussed with respect to workflow 400 in FIG. 4, a microservice may update the current workflow stage of a transaction object to route it to different next microservices depending on whether it meets certain criteria. [0075] At step 529, first microservice 520 may put the updated transaction object back to the SDP. The updated transaction object may have one or more changed values [...], in addition to the updated current workflow stage. Please note that putting the updated transaction object back to the SDP in addition to the updated current workflow stage corresponds to Applicant’s performing the modification on the workflow step from the process stream.).
Higgins and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer workflow request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higgins to incorporate the teachings of Lee to modify the system receiving a request during a process stream indicative of a data change being utilized for the data stream to have the request indicate a reversal of progress of the process as well, analyze a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream and data change, determine the modification performable on the workflow step, and perform the modification on the workflow step, allowing for improved system flexibility via dynamic changing of the workflow step in the process stream, as described in Lee.
Regarding Claim 9, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 8, Higgins further discloses initializing the process stream based on a trigger event, where the process stream includes the plurality of workflow steps performable across a plurality of applications ([0166] Further, in one embodiment, the method processor may lunch or start workflow applications in response to external events, such as […] the start or end of an event, such as the start or end of a module or a workflow application. Please note that starting the workflow application in response to a start event corresponds to Applicant’s initializing the process stream including the plurality of workflow steps performable across a plurality of applications based on a trigger event.).
Regarding Claim 10, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 9, Lee further discloses reversing from a current workflow step to a previous workflow step in the process stream, wherein the previous workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that re-executing the workflow by the prior microservice corresponds to Applicant’s reversing from a current workflow step to a previous workflow step in the process stream, wherein the previous workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, because in this process the prior microservice is inherently the previous workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, i.e., the point at which the addenda data writing is required.);
storing data associated with the process stream between the current workflow step and the previous workflow step ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that writing additional data to the transaction object by the pause microservice corresponds to Applicant’s storing data associated with the process stream between the current workflow step and the previous workflow step);
re-initializing a new process stream from the previous workflow step based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that re-executing the workflow by the prior microservice corresponds to Applicant’s re-initializing a new process stream from the previous workflow step based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 11, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 9, Lee further discloses reversing from a current workflow step to a first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream based on the data change being utilized for the process stream([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that setting the workflow stage to INIT after additional data is written to the transaction object corresponds to Applicant’s reversing from a current workflow step to a first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream based on the data change being utilized for the process stream);
re-initializing a new process stream from the first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that restarting the workflow by setting the workflow stage to INIT corresponds to Applicant’s re-initializing a new process stream from the first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 12, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 9, Lee further discloses altering a future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream, wherein the future workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that updating the paused transaction object prior to resuming processing by advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s altering a future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream, wherein the future workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, because in this process the future workflow step that the processing is advanced to is inherently one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, i.e., the point at which the addenda data writing is required.);
initializing new process stream from the future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s initializing a new process stream from the future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 15, Higgins discloses A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer readable storage mediums; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage mediums to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising: ([0109] In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention may be implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions referred to as "programs." An application program typically includes one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause the computer to perform operations necessary to execute elements involving the various aspects of the invention. Please note that the sequence of instructions referred to as programs stored in memory and storage devices in a computer to be executed by processors in the computer corresponds to Applicant’s computer system comprising a processor set; one or more computer readable storage mediums; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage mediums to cause the processor set to perform operations.),
receiving a request during a process stream ([0179] The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller). Please note that the model responding to instructions to change state corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a request during a process stream.);
determining the request is indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream ([0209] During the execution, the method processor dynamically and selectively loads applications components as part of the running process of the method processor. Thus, the capability of the method processor to process different workflows can change dynamically during the execution, through loading and unloading the application components. Please note that the dynamically loading application components as part of the running process during execution corresponds to Applicant’s determining the request is indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream, as in responding to instructions to change state, the system would be able to carry out a data change being utilized for the process stream, i.e., change the capability to process the workflow dynamically.);
Higgins does not explicitly disclose determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream;
analyzing a context for the reversal of progress of the process stream and the data change being utilized for the process stream;
responsive to determining a modification is required to at least one workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context, determining the modification performable on the at least one workflow step from the process stream;
and performing the modification on the at least one workflow step from the process stream.
However, Lee discloses determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow via an indication corresponds to Applicant’s determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream.)
analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow, where the updating is based on the response corresponds to Applicant’s analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream.)
and the data change being utilized for the process stream ([0073] At step 525, first microservice 520 may process the transaction objects it retrieved from the SDP according to processing logic associated with first microservice 520. Processing a transaction object may include: reviewing, assessing, analyzing, updating, adding to, removing, and/or any other suitable processing of the transaction data, addenda data, and/or transaction metadata associated with the transaction object. Please note that processing transaction objects according to processing logic including analyzing the associated transaction data and metadata corresponds to Applicant’s analyzing a context for the data change being utilized for the process stream.);
responsive to determining a modification is required to at least one workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context, determining the modification performable on the at least one workflow step from the process stream ([0074] At step 527, first microservice 520 may update a current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate completion of the processing corresponding to first microservice 520. In some embodiments, the current workflow stage may be updated to different next step values depending on the processing by first microservice 520. For example, as discussed with respect to workflow 400 in FIG. 4, a microservice may update the current workflow stage of a transaction object to route it to different next microservices depending on whether it meets certain criteria. [0075] At step 529, first microservice 520 may put the updated transaction object back to the SDP. The updated transaction object may have one or more changed values [...], in addition to the updated current workflow stage. Please note that the determination whether the current workflow stage of a transaction object meets certain criteria prior to updating it to route it to different next microservices corresponds to Applicant’s determining the modification performable on the workflow step from the process stream responsive to determining a modification is required to the workflow step from a plurality of workflow steps of the process stream based on the analyzing of the context.);
and performing the modification on the at least one workflow step from the process stream ([0074] At step 527, first microservice 520 may update a current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate completion of the processing corresponding to first microservice 520. In some embodiments, the current workflow stage may be updated to different next step values depending on the processing by first microservice 520. For example, as discussed with respect to workflow 400 in FIG. 4, a microservice may update the current workflow stage of a transaction object to route it to different next microservices depending on whether it meets certain criteria. [0075] At step 529, first microservice 520 may put the updated transaction object back to the SDP. The updated transaction object may have one or more changed values [...], in addition to the updated current workflow stage. Please note that putting the updated transaction object back to the SDP in addition to the updated current workflow stage corresponds to Applicant’s performing the modification on the workflow step from the process stream.).
Higgins and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer workflow request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higgins to incorporate the teachings of Lee to modify the system receiving a request during a process stream indicative of a data change being utilized for the data stream to have the request indicate a reversal of progress of the process as well, analyze a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream and data change, determine the modification performable on the workflow step, and perform the modification on the workflow step, allowing for improved system flexibility via dynamic changing of the workflow step in the process stream, as described in Lee.
Regarding Claim 16, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 15, Higgins further discloses initializing the process stream based on a trigger event, where the process stream includes the plurality of workflow steps performable across a plurality of applications ([0166] Further, in one embodiment, the method processor may lunch or start workflow applications in response to external events, such as […] the start or end of an event, such as the start or end of a module or a workflow application. Please note that starting the workflow application in response to a start event corresponds to Applicant’s initializing the process stream including the plurality of workflow steps performable across a plurality of applications based on a trigger event.).
Regarding Claim 17, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 16, Lee further discloses reversing from a current workflow step to a previous workflow step in the process stream, wherein the previous workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that re-executing the workflow by the prior microservice corresponds to Applicant’s reversing from a current workflow step to a previous workflow step in the process stream, wherein the previous workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, because in this process the prior microservice is inherently the previous workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, i.e., the point at which the addenda data writing is required.);
storing data associated with the process stream between the current workflow step and the previous workflow step ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that writing additional data to the transaction object by the pause microservice corresponds to Applicant’s storing data associated with the process stream between the current workflow step and the previous workflow step);
re-initializing a new process stream from the previous workflow step based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that re-executing the workflow by the prior microservice corresponds to Applicant’s re-initializing a new process stream from the previous workflow step based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 18, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 16, Lee further discloses reversing from a current workflow step to a first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream based on the data change being utilized for the process stream ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that setting the workflow stage to INIT after additional data is written to the transaction object corresponds to Applicant’s reversing from a current workflow step to a first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream based on the data change being utilized for the process stream);
re-initializing a new process stream from the first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that restarting the workflow by setting the workflow stage to INIT corresponds to Applicant’s re-initializing a new process stream from the first workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request.).
Regarding Claim 19, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 16, Lee further discloses altering a future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream, wherein the future workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required ([0230] In step 1816, pause microservice 1810 may update the paused transaction object based on the response. For example, pause microservice 1810 may write additional information to the transaction object, for example, as addenda data. In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that updating the paused transaction object prior to resuming processing by advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s altering a future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps in the process stream, wherein the future workflow step is the at least one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, because in this process the future workflow step that the processing is advanced to is inherently one workflow step from the process stream where the modification is required, i.e., the point at which the addenda data writing is required.);
initializing new process stream from the future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request ([0230] In step 1817, pause microservice may update the current workflow stage of the transaction object to indicate that the transaction object may resume processing. As discussed above, this indication may include restarting the workflow (e.g., setting the workflow stage to “INIT”), re-executing by the prior microservice, and/or advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow. Please note that advancing the processing to the next microservice in the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s initializing a new process stream from the future workflow step from the plurality of workflow steps based on the request.).
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 20070067373 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20230108180 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Nagaraja et al. (US 20200244605 A1), hereinafter referred to as Higgins, Lee, and Nagaraja, respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving the request during the process stream is via an AI chatbot component.
However, Nagaraja discloses wherein the receiving the request during the process stream is via an AI chatbot component ([0009] receiving an input sequence from a user in relation to a request for a service; processing the input sequence to determine a service type; associating a workflow with the request based at least in part on the service type and a profile of the user, the workflow including a set of one or more steps […] the workflow being performed by at least one of: a chatbot, an AI assistant. Please note that the receiving an input sequence related to a request with an associated workflow being performed by a chatbot/AI assistant corresponds to Applicant’s receiving the request during the process stream being via an AI chatbot component.).
Higgins-Lee and Nagaraja are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer workflow request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higgins-Lee to incorporate the teachings of Nagaraja to modify the system as disclosed in Claim 8 to receive the request during the process stream via an AI chatbot component, allowing for improved system efficiency via automation, as described in Nagaraja.
Regarding Claim 7, Higgins-Lee-Nagaraja as described in Claim 6, Higgins further discloses to reverse or discard one or more workflow steps from the process stream based on the request ([0209] During the execution, the method processor dynamically and selectively loads applications components as part of the running process of the method processor. Thus, the capability of the method processor to process different workflows can change dynamically during the execution, through loading and unloading the application components. Please note that unloading the application components as part of the running process associated with the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s discarding workflow steps from the process stream based on the request.),
wherein the one or more user inputs include, a start point or a stop point for the at least one workflow step in the process stream, or code script in the process stream ([0166] Further, in one embodiment, the method processor may lunch or start workflow applications in response to external events, such as […] the start or end of an event, such as the start or end of a module or a workflow application. Please note that starting the workflow application in response to a start event corresponds to Applicant’s user input including a start point for the workflow step in the process stream.)
Nagaraja further discloses training, the AI chatbot component, via one or more user inputs ([0030] the afore-described artificial intelligence models are created, trained, updated, and retrained using the communication between the user and/or other users, in relation to the delivering services of the same service type, and/or delivering services other than the service type, at the service platform. Please note that training the artificial intelligence models using the communication between the user in relation to delivering services corresponds to Applicant’s training the AI chatbot component via user inputs.).
Regarding Claim 13, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 8 does not explicitly disclose receiving the request during the process stream is via an AI chatbot component.
However, Nagaraja discloses receiving the request during the process stream is via an AI chatbot component ([0009] receiving an input sequence from a user in relation to a request for a service; processing the input sequence to determine a service type; associating a workflow with the request based at least in part on the service type and a profile of the user, the workflow including a set of one or more steps […] the workflow being performed by at least one of: a chatbot, an AI assistant. Please note that the receiving an input sequence related to a request with an associated workflow being performed by a chatbot/AI assistant corresponds to Applicant’s receiving the request during the process stream being via an AI chatbot component.).
Higgins-Lee and Nagaraja are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer workflow request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higgins-Lee to incorporate the teachings of Nagaraja to modify the system as disclosed in Claim 8 to receive the request during the process stream via an AI chatbot component, allowing for improved system efficiency via automation, as described in Nagaraja.
Regarding Claim 14, Higgins-Lee-Nagaraja as described in Claim 13, Higgins further discloses to reverse or discard one or more workflow steps from the process stream based on the request ([0209] During the execution, the method processor dynamically and selectively loads applications components as part of the running process of the method processor. Thus, the capability of the method processor to process different workflows can change dynamically during the execution, through loading and unloading the application components. Please note that unloading the application components as part of the running process associated with the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s discarding workflow steps from the process stream based on the request.),
wherein the one or more user inputs include, a start point or a stop point for the at least one workflow step in the process stream, or code script in the process stream ([0166] Further, in one embodiment, the method processor may lunch or start workflow applications in response to external events, such as […] the start or end of an event, such as the start or end of a module or a workflow application. Please note that starting the workflow application in response to a start event corresponds to Applicant’s user input including a start point for the workflow step in the process stream.)
Nagaraja further discloses training, the AI chatbot component, via one or more user inputs ([0030] the afore-described artificial intelligence models are created, trained, updated, and retrained using the communication between the user and/or other users, in relation to the delivering services of the same service type, and/or delivering services other than the service type, at the service platform. Please note that training the artificial intelligence models using the communication between the user in relation to delivering services corresponds to Applicant’s training the AI chatbot component via user inputs.).
Regarding Claim 20, Higgins-Lee as described in Claim 15 further discloses from Higgins to reverse or discard one or more workflow steps from the process stream based on the request ([0209] During the execution, the method processor dynamically and selectively loads applications components as part of the running process of the method processor. Thus, the capability of the method processor to process different workflows can change dynamically during the execution, through loading and unloading the application components. Please note that unloading the application components as part of the running process associated with the workflow corresponds to Applicant’s discarding workflow steps from the process stream based on the request.),
wherein the one or more user inputs include, a start point or a stop point for the at least one workflow step in the process stream, or code script in the process stream ([0166] Further, in one embodiment, the method processor may lunch or start workflow applications in response to external events, such as […] the start or end of an event, such as the start or end of a module or a workflow application. Please note that starting the workflow application in response to a start event corresponds to Applicant’s user input including a start point for the workflow step in the process stream.),
Higgins-Lee does not explicitly disclose training, an AI chatbot component to receive the request, via one or more user inputs
wherein the receiving the request during the process stream is via the AI chatbot component.
However, Nagaraja discloses training, an AI chatbot component to receive the request, via one or more user inputs ([0030] the afore-described artificial intelligence models are created, trained, updated, and retrained using the communication between the user and/or other users, in relation to the delivering services of the same service type, and/or delivering services other than the service type, at the service platform. Please note that training the artificial intelligence models using the communication between the user in relation to delivering services corresponds to Applicant’s training the AI chatbot component via user inputs.)
wherein the receiving the request during the process stream is via the AI chatbot component ([0009] receiving an input sequence from a user in relation to a request for a service; processing the input sequence to determine a service type; associating a workflow with the request based at least in part on the service type and a profile of the user, the workflow including a set of one or more steps […] the workflow being performed by at least one of: a chatbot, an AI assistant. Please note that the receiving an input sequence related to a request with an associated workflow being performed by a chatbot/AI assistant corresponds to Applicant’s receiving the request during the process stream being via an AI chatbot component.).
Higgins-Lee and Nagaraja are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer workflow request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higgins-Lee to incorporate the teachings of Nagaraja to modify the system as disclosed in Claim 15 to train an AI chatbot component to receive the request via user inputs to discard workflow steps based on an included start point, allowing for improved system efficiency via automation, as described in Nagaraja.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized as follows:
Claim 8 has been corrected to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, the rejections for Claims 8-14 should be withdrawn.
Claim 20 has been corrected to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). Therefore, the rejection for Claim 20 should be withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of amended independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Higgins-Lee does not teach “determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream and indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream” and “analyzing a context for the reversal of progress of the process stream and the data change being utilized for the process stream.” The previously presented Claim 3 was described as having limitations similar to that of amended independent Claim 1, this is not the same, as Lee teaches “re-executing by the prior microservice” but not “determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream” and “analyzing a context for the reversal of progress of the process stream” as stated in amended Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 1 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103. Additionally, Claims 8 and 15 are also allowable, as they are independent Claims with similar limitations. Lastly, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are allowable because they depend on allowable independent Claims.
Regarding Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20, the Nagaraja reference does not cure the deficiencies of Higgins-Lee, and therefore, these claims should be allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding A, Claim 8 has been sufficiently amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, as it now recites “computer readable storage mediums,” which excludes transitory as per the specification. Accordingly, the rejections for Claims 8-14 are withdrawn.
Regarding B, Claim 20 has been sufficiently amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as it now recites “an AI chatbot,” remedying the issue with antecedent basis. Accordingly, the rejection for Claim 20 is withdrawn.
Regarding C, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed above, the combination of Higgins-Lee discloses the limitations determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream and indicative of a data change being utilized for the process stream” and “analyzing a context for the reversal of progress of the process stream and the data change being utilized for the process stream.” This is because, as described above via Lee in [0230], the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow via an indication corresponds to Applicant’s determining the request is indicative of a reversal of progress of the process stream, and the response informing the pause microservice to re-execute the workflow by the prior microservice or set the workflow stage to INIT to restart the workflow, where the updating is based on the response corresponds to Applicant’s analyzing a context for the reversal of the progress of the process stream. Therefore, the recited features can be found in the cited combination of references, independent Claim 1 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated above, and the combinations cited would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Additionally, the Independent claims 8 and 15 contain similar limitations to rejected Independent Claim 1 and do not add limitations that overcome the rejection, and the dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend on unpatentable claims and do not add limitations that overcome the rejection. Therefore, they likewise remain rejected, and the application is not in condition for allowance. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Regarding D, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The dependent Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 depend on unpatentable claims and do not add limitations that overcome the rejection. Therefore, they likewise remain rejected, and the application is not in condition for allowance. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US20230106852) discloses pausing the processing of workflows via a request, updating the current workflow stage, analyzing associated data of a transaction object, and changing the transaction data in addition to the updated current workflow stage (see [0010, 0058, 0073]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights