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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 1, 12 & 20). These claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites “mapping the initial workflow to a template for generating process model objects for workflows, the template comprising a single condition block to represent the multiple conditions and a single action block to represent the multiple actions; extracting the user-provided information from the request; and dynamically generating a process model object for the initial workflow based, at least in part, on the extracted user-provided information and information associated with the template”.
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Claims 2, 4 & 7-10 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping. Claims 12-19 recite limitations which correspond to claims 1-5 & 7-9, respectively. Claim 20 recites limitations which corresponds to claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
These additional elements include: software application, system, memory, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and computer system.
Independent claim 1 recites “obtaining a request from a user of a software application for configuring workflows, the request being for an initial workflow including multiple conditions and multiple actions, the request including user-provided information for one or more of the multiple conditions and one or more of the multiple actions”.
The claim recites limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claims 3, 5, 6 & 11 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified insignificant extra-solution activity. Claims 12-19 recite limitations which correspond to claims 1-5 & 7-9, respectively. Claim 20 recites limitations which corresponds to claim 1.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations of generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality do not meaningfully limit the claim. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and presentation do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
(i) Yuan et al. (USPN 11,599,813 B1, hereinafter “Yuan”) in view of
(ii) McAdam et al. (US 2019/0266575 A1, hereinafter “McAdam”).
Yuan teaches:
1. A method for dynamically generating process model objects for workflows, the method comprising:
obtaining a request from a user of a software application for configuring workflows, the request being for an initial workflow including multiple conditions and multiple actions, the request including user-provided information for one or more of the multiple conditions and one or more of the multiple actions [Yuan, column 3:lines 28-57];
mapping the initial workflow to a template for generating process model objects for workflows, the template comprising a single condition block to represent the multiple conditions and a single action block to represent the multiple actions [Yuan, column 4:line 38 to column 5:line 4];
Yuan does not explicitly teach, but McAdam teaches:
extracting the user-provided information from the request [McAdam, ¶¶ 0090 & 0091]; and
dynamically generating a process model object for the initial workflow based, at least in part, on the extracted user-provided information and information associated with the template [McAdam, ¶ 0091].
Yuan and McAdam are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, workflow management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yuan with the contextual input and parameter passing techniques of McAdam to achieve more flexibility with workflow design.
The combination of Yuan and McAdam teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the information associated with the template comprises implicit information for one or more sub-processes associated with the single condition block or one or more sub-processes associated with the single action block [McAdam, ¶ 0088].
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a structure of the process model object for the initial workflow, the structure including a plurality of nodes, each of the nodes corresponding to a respective event included in a sequence of events to be performed based, at least in part, on the multiple conditions and the multiple actions included in the request for the workflow [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40]; and
storing data indicative of the structure on a database [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40].
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the data indicative of the structure comprises an adjacency vector specifying connectivity between the plurality of nodes of the structure [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40, workflow parameters are consistent with Specification paragraph [0026]’s description of adjacency vector].
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the storing comprises:
determining an instance of the adjacency vector is not already stored on the database [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40, workflow parameters are consistent with Specification paragraph [0026]’s description of adjacency vector]; and
in response to the determining, storing the adjacency vector on the database [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40, workflow parameters are consistent with Specification paragraph [0026]’s description of adjacency vector].
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the storing further comprises:
converting the adjacency vector to a unique hash value [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40, workflow parameters are consistent with Specification paragraph [0026]’s description of adjacency vector]; and
storing the unique hash value on the database [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40, workflow parameters are consistent with Specification paragraph [0026]’s description of adjacency vector].
7. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
obtaining a request for an additional workflow including multiple conditions and multiple actions [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40];
reusing the structure of the process model object for the initial workflow to generate the additional workflow [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40].
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising:
generating a structure of a process model object for the additional workflow [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40];
determining the structure of the process model object for the additional workflow matches the structure of the process model object for the initial workflow [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40]; and
in response to the determining, reusing the structure of the process model object for the initial workflow to generate the additional workflow [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40].
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: discarding the structure of the process model object for the additional workflow [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40].
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the process model object for the initial workflow comprises a serialized graph [Yuan, column 8:lines 6-40].
11. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the request for the initial workflow comprises obtaining the request via user-input provided via a graphical user interface associated with the software application [Yuan, column 4:lines 38-43].
Claims 12-19 recite limitations which correspond to claims 1-5 & 7-9, respectively. Claim 20 recites limitations which corresponds to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 04/04/2026
Prosecution Insights