DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to the communication filed 11/16/2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well . It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “ JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) JSON and JSON schema ” at lines 8-9 of [0012], lines 10-11 of [0039] should be: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) JSON schema . “accessing an application programming interface API service” at lines 3-4 of [0039] should be: accessing an application programming interface (API) service . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “ the workflow input selection” at line 12 of claim 1 should be: a workflow input selection. “ the workflow task definition associated with the workflow task ” at line 15 of claim 1 should be: the workflow task definition associated with the at least one workflow task (note: each of lines 16-17 of claim 17 , lines 15-16 of claim 19 is objected due to same issue) . “a code for the workflow definition and a code for the workflow definition” at lines 23-24 of claim 1 should be: a code for the workflow definition (note 1 : “and a code for the workflow definition” is redundant to “a code for the workflow definition” . Note2: each of line 25 of claim 17 and line 24 of claim 19 are objected due to same issue ). Claims 2-16 are objected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. “The internet financial services system” at line 1 of each of claims 2-16 should be: The institution-customizable internet financials services system. “a set of local data described by JSON schema” at lines 2-3 of claim 5 should be: a set of local data described by the JSON schema, “the local data” at each of line 2 of claim 6, line 2 of claim 7, line 3 of claim 7 should be: the set of local data (note: each of line 4, 7 of claim 18 , line 5, 7 of claim 20 is objected due to same issue) . “at least one workflow task” at lines 1-2 of claim 9 should be: the at least one workflow task. “API service” at line 3 of claim 14 should be: the API service. “the remote site” at line 1-2 of claim 15 should be: a remote site. “the use of” at line 2 of claim 15 should be: using. “ , wherein the API service resides in an application web service accessible through a network” at lines 7-8 of claim 17 should be deleted due to lines 4-5 of claim 17 already include exact same limitation. “and wherein all workflows include at least one workflow task” at lines 12-13 of claim 17 should be deleted due to line 10 of claim 17 already includes exact same limitation. Claim 18 is objected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. “the inputs and outputs” at line 5 of claim 18 should be: the set of inputs and outputs (note: line 6 of claim 20 is objected due to same issue) . “wherein at least one workflow task” at line 10 of claim 18 should be: wherein the at least one workflow task (note: line 10 of claim 20 is objected due to same issue) . “an application programming interface API service” at line 3 of claim 1 9 should be: an application programming interface (API) service. Claim 20 is objected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding to Claim 1 , the meaning of claimed limitation “wherein the workflow items follow JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) JSON and JSON schema” at lines 10-11 is not clear. It is not clear that whether Applicant intends to mean the claimed workflow items follows two objects/components of JSON (first object or component) and JSON schema (second object or component) (note: if they are actually two objects/components, then what are differences between these two objects/components) OR Applicant intends to mean the claimed workflow items follows a schema using JSON format. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the limitation above as: wherein the workflow items follow a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) JSON and JSON schema. The meaning of “identifying the workflow definition associated with the workflow selection” at lines 14-15 is not clear. I t is not clear what is “workflow selection”; there are two selections on claim 1, i.e., claimed “workflow input selection” and claimed “workflow task input selection”. Whether claimed “workflow selection” at lines 14-15 is used to refer both selections OR one of the selections. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the limitation above as: identifying the workflow definition associated with the workflow input selection. Th e meaning of claimed limitation of “ retrieving an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow definition and an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow task definition ” at lines 16-18 is not clear. First of all, there are two “an execution sequence graph template” at the claim , i.e., a first “ execution sequence graph template ” “ according to the workflow definition ” and a second “ execution sequence graph template ” “ according to the workflow task definition ”. It is not clear that Applicant intend to make these two “ execution sequence graph template ” as two different and separate execution sequence graph template s OR these two “ execution sequence graph template ” are actually same/single execution sequence graph template . For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the claimed limitation above as: retrieving an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow definition and the workflow task definition . The meaning of limitation “wherein the revising a section of workflow calls” at line 21 is not clear. T here is a revising step/action at claim 1, i.e., “revising a workflow initial execution state and a workflow task initial execution state” at lines 19-20. It is not clear that “the revising” at line 21 is used to refer same revising at lines 19-20 OR a different revising step/action . The revising at line 21 is about revising a section of workflow calls on workflow definition and workflow task definition while the revising at lines 19-20 is revising workflow initial execution state and workflow task initial execution state; such two revising steps/actions are not necessary to be same or related. If such two revising steps/actions are not related, then it is illogical to use language of “wherein the revising” at line 21 (it should be: revising instead of wherein the revising). For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation above as: wherein the revising comprises revising a section of workflow calls The meaning of limitation “the API environment ” at line 22 is not clear. First of all, there is no such “API environment ” mentioned before, and thus it should be an API environment . Secondly, it is not clear that such “API environment ” is actually used to refer claimed “API service” at lines of claim 1 or not. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the claimed “the API environment ” as: the API service. Claims 2-16 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. In addition, “the workflow item definitions” at lines 1-2 of claim 10 is not clear. Claim 1 includes claimed “workflow definition” and claimed “workflow task definition” without introducing a workflow item definition. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation above as: the workflow definition and the workflow task definition. Regarding to Claim 17 , limitation “ wherein the workflow items follow JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and JSON schema ” at lines 14-15 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “identifying the workflow definition associated with the workflow section” at line 16 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “ retrieving an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow definition and an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow task definition ” at lines 18-20 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “ wherein the revising a section of workflow calls ” at line 23 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “ the API environment ” at line 24 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Claim 18 is rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from its respective parent claim by dependency. In addition, the meaning of limitation “ JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and JSON schema ” at lines 5-6 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. the meaning of limitation “high-level business (financial services) processes” at line 12 is not clear. It is not clear that the patentable weight of “(financial services)” at the limitation. Whether such “financial services” is further defining claimed high-level business as financial services OR it is only a particular example of claimed high-level business without patentable weight. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets this limitation as: financial service processes. Regarding to Claim 19 , limitation “ wherein the workflow items follow JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and JSON schema ” at lines 11-12 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “identifying the workflow definition associated with the workflow section” at line 15 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “ retrieving an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow definition and an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow task definition ” at lines 17-19 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “ wherein the revising a section of workflow calls ” at line 22 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Limitation “ the API environment ” at line 23 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Claim 20 is rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from its respective parent claim by dependency. In addition, the meaning of limitation “ JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and JSON schema ” at line 6 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. the meaning of limitation “high-level business (financial services) processes” at lines 12-13 is not clear. It is not clear that the patentable weight of “(financial services)” at the limitation. Whether such “financial services” is further defining claimed high-level business as financial services OR it is only a particular example of claimed high-level business without patentable weight. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets this limitation as: financial service processes. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 3-12, 14-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) ( 1 ) as being anticipated by Kiefer et al. (US 20220058065 A1, hereafter Kiefer) . Regarding to claim 1 , Kiefer discloses: An institution-customizable internet financial services system (see [0003], [0038]-[0039]; “ these API services may include services for authentication, financial services ”, “ the system and method are described with references to service providers and client applications ”, “ a service provider may enable integration with one or more financial accounts by an end user. A plurality of different client applications may make use of this service provider to enable the end user of the client application to connect to and/or perform actions with a financial account ”. Also see [0084]; “ the workflow service 110 may operate as part of offering a digital financial tool used in accessing or interacting with various external financial accounts” ) , the system comprising: a host site (see Figs. 1, 5, [0039] and [0041]; “ A service provider as used herein is generally characterized as a computer-implemented platform facilitating the workflow service. The service provider will generally be an API service provider, which may be operating as a SaaS (software as a service) computing platform ” and “ The workflow service 11 o is preferably a cloud-hosted system (e.g., a remote server or computer system accessible over a network) that interfaces with multiple instances of client applications/devices ”) that includes: an application web service, the application web service comprising an application programming interface (API) service wherein the API service comprises workflow items (see Figs. 1, 5, [0017], [0039], [0041]-[0042] and [0046]; “ enable the backend computing infrastructure of an API service provider (e.g., a remote/cloud-hosted server) ”, “ A service provider as used herein is generally characterized as a computer-implemented platform facilitating the workflow service. The service provider will generally be an API service provider, which may be operating as a SaaS (software as a service) computing platform ”, “ a workflow service 110 that can be configured with workflow configuration 120 to generate rendered panes ”, “ the workflow service 11 o can be implemented as part of an internet-accessible cloud infrastructure for an API service platform . The workflow service 11 o may be implemented as part of an API service computing platform ” and “ The workflow configuration 120 can be maintained within the workflow service 110 ”) having: at least one workflow characterized by a workflow definition (see [0041]-[0043], [0058]-[0059]; “ evaluates workflow configuration 120, which, as described herein, can be a directed graph defining an interaction flow” and “ the workflow configuration 120 preferably defines a directed graph that specifies how to generate new UI data. The directed graph preferably includes a number of nodes that are connected through directional edges … There may be different types of nodes that handle different operations … the workflow configuration 120 is a directed graph of at least three types of nodes: a pane node 121, a processor node 122, and a switch node 123 as shown in FIG. 2 ”) , and at least one workflow task characterized by a workflow task definition and wherein all workflows include at least one workflow task (see [0059]; “ There may be different types of nodes that handle different operations … the workflow configuration 120 is a directed graph of at least three types of nodes: a pane node 121, a processor node 122, and a switch node 123 as shown in FIG. 2 ”. Also see [0060]-[0073] for the details of a pane node, a processor node and a switch node as claimed workflow task definition that characterizes different types of workflow tasks) ; wherein the workflow items follow JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) JSON and JSON schema (see [0056]; “ A limited set of exemplary data formats for the workflow configuration 120 could include a protocol buffer format (e.g., a proto file format), a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) ”) , cause the system to perform the operations of: receiving the workflow input selection and a workflow task input selection from an interface identifying the workflow definition associated with the workflow selection and the workflow task definition associated with the workflow task (see [0051], [0074]; “ The start API endpoint (e.g., “ . . . /workflow/start”) can be used for a client to send initial configuration/initiation data. The data may be used to initialize the session state. The data may also be used by the workflow service 110 to select an appropriate workflow configuration 120 to be used ”, “ the workflow editor 140 enables a user to create nodes, edit the properties of those nods, and edit connections between the nodes … Presentation of the node and the edges in the directed graph of the workflow configuration may be selectable and editable through such interactions. Nodes and edges may be added, altered, and/or deleted ”. Also see [0025], [0057]; “ The workflow editor interface and the modular nature of the workflow configurations can be such that users may more readily create new user interaction flows, edit user interaction flows, and/or create variations of existing user interaction flow ”, “ The workflow configuration 120 may be edited and created from any suitable source. In one variation, the workflow configuration 120 is generated and edited by a workflow editor 140 ” ) ; retrieving an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow definition and an execution sequence graph template according to the workflow task definition (see [0058], [0074]; “ The directed graph preferably includes a number of nodes that are connected through directional edges ” and “ a workflow editor 140, which functions as a graphical user interface for creating and/or editing workflow configuration 120 … edit connections between the nodes … the order of various rendered panes can be altered by reordering the associated pane nodes 121 using the workflow editor 140 ”. Also see [0093]; “ the workflow is a data model of a graph of nodes connected with directed edges ”) ; and revising a workflow initial execution state and a workflow task initial execution state (see [0051], [0093]; “ processing of a workflow configuration with an initial session state … iteratively processing the workflow configuration, initially using the initial session state, thereby generating rendered panes for use in a user interaction flow of a client application … following a next edge of the workflow configuration to determine a next workflow node , processing the next workflow node, which comprises, when the next workflow node is a pane node, rendering the pane node into a rendered pane, and sending the rendered pane to the client device ”) ; wherein the revising a section of workflow calls on saved workflow definitions and saved workflow task definitions in the API environment (see [0104] and [0107]; “ providing a workflow editor user interface wherein data of the workflow configuration data and its sub-components may be created and/or edited by the workflow editor user interface. In such a variation, setting a workflow configuration may include building a workflow configuration within a workflow editor application. Building the workflow configuration within the workflow editor application may include adding nodes (e.g., pre-configured nodes), adding node templates (e.g., nodes intended for editing), customizing, or editing nodes, setting connections between nodes, deleting nodes ” and “ a library of workflow templates, nodes, sub-workflow portions may be navigable and selectable within a workflow editor user interface. The components of this library may be added to new workflows. They may be copied or symbolically linked so that they depend on a parent version of the component ”) ; and wherein a code for the workflow definition and a code for the workflow definition does not need to be marshaled into API-friendly formats during the revising (see [0080]; “workflow editor 140 may have a library of nodes that can be added to a workflow configuration 120 … a type of node from the library of nodes may be customizable … This can make it easier for non-developers to easily create new interaction flows using a set of pane types ”. According to the description of “easier for non-developers to easily” modify or edit the workflow configuration or claimed workflow definition, the workflow editor 140 allow s a code for the workflow configuration is not marshaled into API-friendly formats during the modifying or editing ) . Regarding to Claim 3 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: further including a database server with an internet financial services database (see [0044] and [0084]; “ the workflow service 110 may include a session state database or data record for maintaining session state for each instance of a workflow ” and “ t he workflow service 110 may operate as part of offering a digital financial tool used in accessing or interacting with various external financial accounts ”. Since the workflow service is used for internet financial service, the session state database for the workflow instances of the workflow service from [0044] is reasonable to be considered certain type of internet financial service database) . Regarding to Claim 4 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein each workflow definition includes a dependency and execution sequence graph including workflow tasks, wherein execution of the workflow tasks is coordinated according to the workflow definition as provided in the dependency and execution sequence graph (see [0058], [0106]; “ the workflow configuration 120 preferably defines a directed graph that specifies how to generate new UI data. The directed graph preferably includes a number of nodes that are connected through directional edges. A node will have one or more inputs and/or one or more outputs ” and “ workflow configurations to depend on other workflow configurations in defining at least a portion of their operation ”. Also see [0024], [0119]; “ A switch node examines input data (i.e., output data from a previous node in the graph) and selects one of multiple possible output edges for traversal ”, “ Each workflow (i.e., graph of a workflow configuration) has an initial starting edge. Walking the graph from this starting edge follows the directed edges to a node and then a corresponding output edge of that node is used to determine the next step ”) . Regarding to Claim 5 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein the workflow items use a uniform representation include an execution state, a set of local data described by JSON schema, and an interface (see [0044], [0056], [0058]; “ the workflow service 110 may include a session state database or data record for maintaining session state for each instance of a workflow. The session state can include global data, request data, node output data, and/or other suitable types of data ”, “ A limited set of exemplary data formats for the workflow configuration 120 could include a protocol buffer format (e.g., a proto file format), a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) ”, “ A node will have one or more inputs and/or one or more outputs ”. Note: in order to allow receive input and transmit output for a node, there is at least one interface for a workflow node). Regarding to Claim 6 , the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein the workflow item interface defines a set of inputs and outputs consisting of a subset of the local data (see [0044] and [0058]; “ The session state can include global data, request data, node output data, and/or other suitable types of data. For example, all the user actions and input from previously presented rendered panes can be stored ” and “ A node will have one or more inputs and/or one or more outputs ”). Regarding to Claim 7 , the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein any workflow task, its interface and local data, or derivatives thereof, can be saved as a new workflow task definition and any workflow, its interface and local data, or derivatives thereof, can be saved as a new workflow definition (see [0107]; “ a library of workflow templates, nodes, sub-workflow portions may be navigable and selectable within a workflow editor user interface. The components of this library may be added to new workflows. They may be copied or symbolically linked so that they depend on a parent version of the component ”) . Regarding to Claim 8 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein each workflow definition includes a dependency and execution sequence graph and wherein the dependency and execution sequence graph of each workflow definition includes workflow tasks connected to one another by their respective inputs and outputs in a designated sequence (see [0058], [0106]; “ the workflow configuration 120 preferably defines a directed graph that specifies how to generate new UI data. The directed graph preferably includes a number of nodes that are connected through directional edges. A node will have one or more inputs and/or one or more outputs ” and “ workflow configurations to depend on other workflow configurations in defining at least a portion of their operation ”. Also see [0024], [0119]; “ A switch node examines input data (i.e., output data from a previous node in the graph ) and selects one of multiple possible output edges for traversal ”, “ Each workflow (i.e., graph of a workflow configuration) has an initial starting edge. Walking the graph from this starting edge follows the directed edges to a node and then a corresponding output edge of that node is used to determine the next step ”) . Regarding to Claim 9 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein at least one workflow task supports calling a REST API that is external to the host site or is co-located with the API service in the host site (see [0048]-[0049]; “ The workflow service 110 can include a workflow service API, which functions to expose a programmatic interface through which an instance of a client application (i.e., a client application instance) … The workflow service API can be a REST (Representational State Transfer) API ” and “ The workflow service API exposes an API endpoint … for initiating a workflow, for transitioning between rendered panes, and/or for updating with newer data ”. Note: the REST API functions associated with the client side are external to the host side and the REST API functions associated the server or service provider side are co-located with the API service in the host site) . Regarding to Claim 10 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein the workflow item definitions are immutable and may be included in new or other workflow items by reference (see [0079] and [0107]; “ workflow configurations may import or reference additional workflow configurations. For example, a first workflow configuration may define a user onboarding interaction flow and include a subsection within the graph of the first workflow configuration that references a second workflow configuration that defines a portion of the interaction flow that retrieves consent to various policies from a user ” and “ The components of this library may be added to new workflows. They may be copied or symbolically linked so that they depend on a parent version of the component ”. Without changing the existing workflow configurations, the new workflow configuration can be created via including other workflow nodes or workflow itself by reference, and thus the existing workflow configurations under this point of view is immutable) . Regarding to Claim 11 , the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein the workflow items are embedded in new or other workflow items as hypermedia controls with a link representing a relationship from the new or other workflow item to the referenced workflow item (see [0107]; “ The components of this library may be added to new workflows. They may be copied or symbolically linked so that they depend on a parent version of the component ”) . Regarding to Claim 1 2 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein the workflow items are persistent (see [0044]; “ a session state database or data record for maintaining session state for each instance of a workflow . The session state can include global data, request data, node output data, and/or other suitable types of data. For example, all the user actions and input from previously presented rendered panes can be stored ”). Regarding to Claim 1 4 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein an end user accesses the internet financial services system to conduct an internet financial services transaction by connecting to the host site and API service using a browser from a remote client (see [0039]-[0040] and [0088]; “ A plurality of different client applications may make use of this service provider to enable the end user of the client application to connect to and/or perform actions with a financial account … A client application is preferably an application or service operating on a client device … The client device may alternatively be a browser, terminal, or any suitable viewer for an application ” and “ the client UI engine 120 can use a function to translate the prop data object into a UI element. For example … a DOM (Document Object Model) of a browser-based user interface ”) . Regarding to Claim 1 5 , the rejection of Claim 14 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein a link between the remote site and the host site is secured through the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol or a virtual private network (see [0048]; “ a workflow service API, which functions to expose a programmatic interface through which an instance of a client application (i.e., a client application instance), and more specifically a client UI engine 130 … The workflow service API, in some variations, involves request and response communication over a HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) based application layer protocol ”. Note: it is understood that a HTTP based application layer protocol would involve a link between two sites or parties for performing the corresponding communication) . Regarding to Claim 1 7 , Claim 17 is a method claim corresponds to system Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Regarding to Claim 1 9 , Claim 19 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 17 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 17 above (note: also see [0165] from Kiefer to teach limitation of “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions, wherein the instruction cause a processor to perform steps” ) . 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 of this title, 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiefer et al. ( US 20220058065 A1 , hereafter Kiefer) in view of Dembo et al. ( US 20240104401 A1 , hereafter Dembo) . Regarding to Claim 2 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein the host site further includes an API (see [0048]; “ The workflow service 110 can include a workflow service API … The workflow service API can be a REST (Representational State Transfer) API, a GraphQL API, SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) API, and/or other suitable type of API ”). Kiefer does not disclose: wherein the host site further includes an API gateway . However, Dembo discloses: wherein the host site further includes an API gateway and an API ( see [0093]; “ The processor 120 uses the machine learning pipeline 160 and expert pipeline 170 to link the computer model to macro financial variables to encode a relationship between risk shocks and financial impact . The processor 120 uses the NLP pipeline 165 to extract information … The knowledge graph can be queried by server 100 in response to queries received from a client application (e.g. interface 140) via API gateway … an example workflow of NLP pipeline 165 to process unstructured text and return a structured, codified and accessible data structure (knowledge graph) ”. Also see [0116], [0207]; “the server 100 queries existing pandemic/epidemiological model outputs from different computer models and calculates pandemic risk indices. Other models can be incorporated as third-party input via application passing interface (API) ” and “ The data warehouse 1002 with article data collection receives input from article query API and an automated service (for key value store and deduplication) to populate data sets ” ) . It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the service provider side receives API requests from client side from Kiefer by including server including an API gateway receive requests from clients from Dembo, and thus the combination of Kiefer and Dembo would disclose the missing limitation from Kiefer, since it would provide a specific interface component at API environment to handle communication with clients (see [0093] from Dembo). Claim s 13 , 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiefer et al. ( US 20220058065 A1 , hereafter Kiefer) in view of Chen et al. ( US 20210357584 A1 , hereafter Chen) . Regarding to Claim 1 3 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein each workflow definition and workflow task definition is immutable to a system manager and instead of being edited or updated, workflow definitions and workflow task definitions are changed by creating new revisions that contain changes, said new revisions can be referenced in a workflow item (see [0079] and [0107]; “ workflow configurations may import or reference additional workflow configurations. For example, a first workflow configuration may define a user onboarding interaction flow and include a subsection within the graph of the first workflow configuration that references a second workflow configuration that defines a portion of the interaction flow that retrieves consent to various policies from a user ” and “ The components of this library may be added to new workflows. They may be copied or symbolically linked so that they depend on a parent version of the component ”. Also see [0075]; “ A workflow editor 140 may enable a wide variety of administrators to edit and collaborate within a workflow ”. Without changing the existing workflow configurations, the new workflow configuration can be created via including other workflow nodes or workflow itself by reference, and thus the existing workflow configurations under this point of view is immutable to administrators, i.e. , claimed system manager ) . Kiefer does not disclose: said new revisions can be referenced in a workflow item by a workflow item title containing a name of the workflow item and revision identifier, or a workflow item can reference the latest revision of a workflow by referencing only a name of the workflow item, absent a revision identifier. However, Chen discloses: said new revisions can be referenced in a workflow item by a workflow item title containing a name of the workflow item and revision identifier, or a workflow item can reference the latest revision of a workflow by referencing only a name of the workflow item, absent a revision identifier (see Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, [0090] and [0097]-[0100]; “ workflow 315B is shown as including a set of workflow elements that include workflow element 320A and workflow element 320B. Workflow element 320A is of type “Screen” (i.e., workflow element type 317A, referring to FIG. 3A) as indicated by the bolded text “Screen” and has a name with a value of “First screen.” Workflow element 320B is of type “Start” as indicated by the bolded text “Start” and does not have a name displayed ” and “workflow editor GUI 310, which shows workflow 315C. Workflow 315C includes a set of workflow elements that includes workflow element 320A and workflow element 320B that were discussed referring to FIG. 4A. Workflow 315C also includes workflow element 320C of type “Screen” (i.e., workflow element type 317A, referring to FIG. 3A) as indicated by the bolded text “Screen” and has a name with a value of “Second screen. ”) . It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify workflow editor to generate a new workflow by existing workflow elements from Kiefer by including workflow editor generates a new workflows by adding existing workflow elements referenced by name of the workflow elements , and thus the combination of Kiefer and Chen would disclose the missing limitations from Kiefer, since a name or an identifier is well-known and understood reference to distinguish different objects or components . Regarding to Claim 1 8 , the rejection of Claim 17 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: using a uniform representation for the workflow items that have an execution state, a set of local data, and an interface ( see [0044], [0056], [0058]; “ the workflow service 110 may include a session state database or data record for maintaining session state for each instance of a workflow. The session state can include global data, request data, node output data, and/or other suitable types of data ”, “ A node will have one or more inputs and/or one or more outputs ”. Note: in order to allow receive input and transmit output for a node, there is at least one interface for a workflow node ) ; d efining a set of inputs and outputs that are each a subset of the local data, and the inputs and outputs are each defined according to JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and JSON schema ( see [0044] and [0058]; “ The session state can include global data, request data, node output data, and/or other suitable types of data. For example, all the user actions and input from previously presented rendered panes can be stored ” and “ A node will have one or more inputs and/or one or more outputs ” . Also see [0056]; “ A limited set of exemplary data formats for the workflow configuration 120 could include a protocol buffer format (e.g., a proto file format), a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) ”) ; saving any workflow item and local data as a new workflow item definition, wherein the workflow item definitions are immutable and may be included in new or other workflow items by reference ( see [0079] and [0107]; “ workflow configurations may import or reference additional workflow configurations. For example, a first workflow configuration may define a user onboarding interaction flow and include a subsection within the graph of the first workflow configuration that references a second workflow configuration that defines a portion of the interaction flow that retrieves consent to various policies from a user ” and “ The components of this library may be added to new workflows. They may be copied or symbolically linked so that they depend on a parent version of the component ”. Without changing the existing workflow configurations, the new workflow configuration can be created via including other workflow nodes or workflow itself by reference, and thus the existing workflow configurations under this point of view is immutable ) ; wherein at least one workflow task supports calling a REST API that is external to the application web service ( see [0048]-[0049]; “ The workflow service 110 can include a workflow service API, which functions to expose a programmatic interface through which an instance of a client application (i.e., a client application instance) … The workflow service API can be a REST (Representational State Transfer) API ” and “ The workflow service API exposes an API endpoint … for initiating a workflow, for transitioning between rendered panes, and/or for updating with newer data ”. Note: the REST API functions associated with the client side are external to the host side ) ; performing high-level business (financial services) processes ( see [0003], [0038]-[0039]; “these API services may include services for authentication, financial services ”, “ a service provider may enable integration with one or more financial accounts by an end user. A plurality of different client applications may make use of this service provider to enable the end user of the client application to connect to and/or perform actions with a financial account ”. Also see [0084]; “the workflow service 110 may operate as part of offering a digital financial tool used in accessing or interacting with various external financial accounts” ) ; and wherein each workflow item is immutable and instead of being edited or updated, changing workflow items by creating new revisions that contain changes ( see [0079] and [0107]; “ workflow configurations may import or reference additional workflow configurations. For example, a first workflow configuration may define a user onboarding interaction flow and include a subsection within the graph of the first workflow configuration that references a second workflow configuration that defines a portion of the interaction flow that retrieves consent to various policies from a user ” and “ The components of this library may be added to new workflows. They may be copied or symbolically linked so that they depend on a parent version of the component ”. Without changing the existing workflow configurations, the new workflow configuration can be created via including other workflow nodes or workflow itself by reference, and thus the existing workflow configurations under this point of view is immutable ). Kiefer does not disclose: said revisions referenced in a workflow item by a workflow item title containing a name of the workflow item and revision reference number, or a client can reference the latest revision of a workflow by referencing only the name of the workflow item, absent a revision reference number . However, Chen discloses: said revisions referenced in a workflow item by a workflow item title containing a name of the workflow item and revision reference number, or a client can reference the latest revision of a workflow by referencing only the name of the workflow item, absent a revision reference number (see Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, [0090] and [0097]-[0100]; “ workflow 315B is shown as including a set of workflow elements that include workflow element 320A and workflow element 320B. Workflow element 320A is of type “Screen” (i.e., workflow element type 317A, referring to FIG. 3A) as indicated by the bolded text “Screen” and has a name with a value of “First screen.” Workflow element 320B is of type “Start” as indicated by the bolded text “Start” and does not have a name displayed ” and “workflow editor GUI 310, which shows workflow 315C. Workflow 315C includes a set of workflow elements that includes workflow element 320A and workflow element 320B that were discussed referring to FIG. 4A. Workflow 315C also includes workflow element 320C of type “Screen” (i.e., workflow element type 317A, referring to FIG. 3A) as indicated by the bolded text “Screen” and has a name with a value of “Second screen. ”). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify workflow editor to generate a new workflow by existing workflow elements from Kiefer by including workflow editor generates a new workflows by adding existing workflow elements referenced by name of the workflow elements, and thus the combination of Kiefer and Chen would disclose the missing limitations from Kiefer, since a name or an identifier is well-known and understood reference to distinguish different objects or components . Regarding to Claim 20 , the rejection of Claim 19 is incorporated and further Claim 20 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 18 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 18 above. Claim 1 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiefer et al. ( US 20220058065 A1 , hereafter Kiefer) in view of Pothula et al. ( US 20180011739 A1 , hereafter Pothula ) . Regarding to Claim 1 6 , the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kiefer discloses: wherein the workflow tasks further include a restartable attribute that determines, according to execution by an execution engine of a workflow containing the workflow task, whether the workflow task may be restarted or not. However, Pothula discloses: wherein the workflow tasks further include a restartable attribute that determines, according to execution by an execution engine of a workflow containing the workflow task, whether the workflow task may be restarted or not (see [0034]; “ The workflow controller 216 sends the collected information, along with a user ID, to the meta-database 220, which stores the information in a Factory Workflow Control Block (FWCB). The user then begins to create individual steps to execute within the workflow … The user can also specify whether this step can be safely restarted (and how many times) if it fails during execution , and whether the workflow should stop if this step cannot be completed successfully ”). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the workflow task property from Kiefer by including restart property of workflow task from Pothula , and thus the combination of Kiefer and Pothula would disclose the missing limitations from Pothula , since it would provide a fault handling mechanism for executing steps/tasks of a workflow (see [0034] from Pothula ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yuan et al. ( US 11599813 B1 ) discloses: c ustomizing a workflow may include editing a plain file (e.g., in a format such as JSON) that describes a machine learning process as a series of activity steps with simple conditional statements, next state pointers, and input and output variable mappings between activity steps (see lines 10-40 of col. 8). Crabtree et al. ( US 20210136121 A1 ) discloses: provides the persistence capabilities that satisfy the workflow use case of the system user (see [0028]). Krishnaswamy et al. ( US 20180240162 A1 ) discloses: maintain a persistence of a particular transaction of a workflow (see [0008]). Bantz et al. ( US 20020120711 A1 ) discloses: The event configuration and workflow can be changed locally or remotely using the browser-based interface as well. The tools may employ visual objects to represent business processes, events and actions, and permits the user to visually configure events a nd services without knowledge of the underlying mechanisms (see [0034]) Chandrasekaran et al. ( US 20210192401 A1 ) discloses: Both the drag and drop graphical programming interface and the use of template workflows can make workflow creation more user friendly such that the client user can implement sophisticated features, suc