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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 July 2025 has been entered.
This Continued Examination Office Action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 08 July 2025.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicants have not amended now Claims 1, 3-20 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1, 3-20, Applicants argue that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate with the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024, the claims are continued analyzed based on these new guidelines and is further detailed below in the maintained rejection under 35 USC 101. Additionally, Applicants’ recitation of “claim 1 is directed to improvements in the technical field of computer-related technology…”; Applicant’s specification also describes various technical improvements that the recited computing system of claim 1 provides to computer related technology for better scaling for large amount of data…” is not specifically recited as such in the claims and recitation of limitations of the instant specification are not read into the claims. It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejection for Claims 1, 3-20, Applicants argue that: 2) Blonski et al. (Blonski) (US 2024/0134874) does not teach or suggest in representative amended claim 1: “receiving, by the computing system via the one or more first interfaces, at least one custom object definition comprising one or more data fields, the one or more data fields comprising at least one index field that is indexed; adding a custom object associated with the custom object definition to the object graph data structure; storing, in one or more databases, the first data record, wherein the first data record comprises a custom object type identifier correlating the first data record to the at least one custom object definition”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As see below with further clarification and citation of the maintained prior art of Blonski, the rejection is maintained. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-20 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “system; method; non-transitory computer-readable media” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1, 3-20 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, the claims as a whole encompass processing information by:
“providing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, one or more first interfaces for defining one or more custom objects, the one or more first interfaces comprising one or more components for defining one or more index fields of the one or more custom objects;
receiving, by the computing system via the one or more first interfaces, at least one custom object definition comprising one or more data fields, the one or more data fields comprising at least one index field that is indexed;
adding a custom object associated with the custom object definition to the object graph data structure;
adding, to the object graph data structure based on the custom object definition, one or more edges between the custom object and one or more other objects;
automatically generating, by the computing system based on the at least one custom object definition, one or more second interfaces for defining one or more automated workflows;
automatically generating, based on the at least one custom object definition, one or more third interfaces for creating, reading, updating, or deleting one or more data records associated with the at least one custom object definition;
receiving, via the one or more third interfaces, a request to create a first data record associated with the at least one custom object definition;
storing, in one or more databases, the first data record, wherein the first data record comprises a custom object type identifier correlating the first data record to the at least one custom object definition;
updating, based on the first data record, at least one index associated with the at least one index field;
receiving, by the computing system via the one or more second interfaces, at least one automated workflow definition comprising one or more conditions and one or more actions to be performed when the one or more conditions are satisfied, wherein at least one action or condition of the automated workflow definition comprises a creation, read, update, or deletion of a data record associated with the custom object definition;
evaluating, by the computing system, the one or more conditions;
determining, by the computing system based on the evaluating, that the one or more conditions are satisfied; and
executing, by the computing system responsive to the determining that the one or more conditions are satisfied, the one or more actions, wherein executing the one or more actions comprises query planning based at least in part on the at least one index”
As seen above in bolded, the claims as a whole recite certain groupings under the categories: Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. It is not specifically defined as to how the step limitations are being implemented for the independent claims other than being enabled by user providing definition for a custom data object type via a graphical user interface (see at least Applicants’ published Specification paragraphs 21-37). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 3-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (one or more processors/databases; computer-readable media”, etc.) (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 21-37) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1, 3-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “one or more processors/databases; computer-readable media”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 21-37) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “computing system 110” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Examiner Note
Claims 1, 3-20 recite non-functional and descriptive phrase limitations: “custom/non-custom; native;” (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that the claimed contents of Claims 1, 3-20 amount to non-functional descriptive material that do not functionally alter the claimed method. The recited method steps would be performed in the same manner regardless of what data is contained in the indefinite phrase limitations: “custom/non-custom; native”. Thus, the prior art and the claimed invention have identical structure and the claimed descriptive material is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret these descriptive, titled, non-functional limitations with little to patentable no weight given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blonski et al. (Blonski) (US 2024/0134874).
With regard to Claims 1, 5, 20, Blonski teaches a computer system/method/non-transitory computer readable media that implements an organizational management platform for an organization (systems and methods allowing for users to create, customize and manage applications for managing data flows and processes utilizing distributed computing systems. In particular, systems and methods herein may be utilized for business process optimization wherein operations and processes may be managed and utilized without conventional relocation and/or duplication of enterprise data. The present disclosure provides a unified platform (e.g., cloud-native SaaS platform for no-code business applications with data-driven workflows) for users, organizations or cloud services providers to access their cloud data, process the cloud data for business applications that initiate and manage workflows by connecting natively to the cloud without the need to integrate, transform, or download the data thereby improving efficiency) (see at least paragraphs 4-15, 67-70, Abstract), the computer system/method/non-transitory computer readable media comprising:
one or more processors; one or more databases that collectively store organizational data associated with the organization, wherein the organizational data comprises an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of data objects (data objects) that respectively correspond to a plurality of entities of the organization (various people and sources within a particular organization, but also from other (i.e., outside) organizations) (mapping selected data objects to a data storage model of the data-driven workflow platform, wherein the selected data objects are stored in a data cloud configuration that is operatively coupled to the data-driven workflow platform; and displaying, on a graphical user interface (GUI), an interactive flow for building a cloud application utilizing or managing the selected data objects, wherein the interactive flow comprises at least one graphical element corresponding to a rule for automating an action triggered by a triggering event of the selected data objects) (see at least paragraphs 4-15, 67-70);
and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations, the operations comprising: providing one or more first interfaces (“drag and drop” configuration interfaces of the Service Management Cloud) for defining one or more custom objects (the data cloud configuration comprises one or more data clouds storing data objects, and wherein the data-driven workflow platform is granted permission to access, process, and edit the data objects stored on the one or more data clouds. In some embodiments, mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is defined by a user via the GUI. In some instances, the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship), the one or more first interfaces comprising one or more components for defining one or more index fields (data fields) of the one or more custom objects (mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is defined by a user via the GUI. In some instances, the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship) (see at least paragraphs 6, 79);
receiving, via the one or more first interfaces, at least one custom object definition comprising one or more data fields (the data cloud configuration comprises one or more data clouds storing data objects, and wherein the data-driven workflow platform is granted permission to access, process, and edit the data objects stored on the one or more data clouds. In some embodiments, mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is defined by a user via the GUI. In some instances, the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship), the one or more data fields comprising at least one index field that is indexed (mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is defined by a user via the GUI. In some instances, the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship) (see at least paragraphs 6-17);
adding a custom object associated with the custom object definition (the data cloud configuration comprises one or more data clouds storing data objects, and wherein the data-driven workflow platform is granted permission to access, process, and edit the data objects stored on the one or more data clouds. In some embodiments, mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is defined by a user via the GUI. In some instances, the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship) to the object graph data structure (the data cloud configuration comprises one or more data clouds storing data objects, and wherein the data-driven workflow platform is granted permission to access, process, and edit the data objects stored on the one or more data clouds. In some embodiments, mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is defined by a user via the GUI. In some instances, the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship) (see at least paragraphs 6-17, 79, 81-86);
adding, to the object graph data structure based on the custom object definition, one or more edges (the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship) between the custom object and one or more other objects (the data cloud configuration comprises one or more data clouds storing data objects, and wherein the data-driven workflow platform is granted permission to access, process, and edit the data objects stored on the one or more data clouds. In some embodiments, mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is defined by a user via the GUI. In some instances, the GUI permits the user to link one or more data fields of selected data objects to one or more data fields or the element of the data storage model. In some cases, the relationship is automatically generated by the data-driven workflow platform and displayed on the GUI as a recommended relationship) (see at least paragraphs 6-17, 79, 81-86).
automatically generating, based on the at least one custom object definition, one or more second interfaces for defining one or more automated workflows (the interactive flow permits a user to add, remove or modify one or more components of the cloud application by dragging and dropping one or more graphical elements to the interactive flow. In some cases, the interactive flow comprises a pre-built template flow prompting the user to add, remove or modify the one or more components. In some instances, the pre-built template flow is automatically determined based at least in part on the selected data objects and the cloud application; the rule is automatically generated based at least in part on one or more data fields added to the interactive flow. In some cases, the rule is automatically generated using a model and wherein the model is developed using rules extracted from past actions and previously processed data. In some instances, the rule is recommended to a user on the GUI and wherein the at least one graphical element allows the user to accept, reject or modify the rule) (see at least paragraphs 6-17);
automatically generating, based on the at least one custom object definition, one or more third interfaces (the Data-driven workflow platform provide a no-code configuration interfaces for creating cloud applications. The platform may allow users to create, customize and/or configure cloud applications via a no-code user interface with built-in features such as configurable and automated workflows and dynamic relationships discovery and creation. In some cases, the platform may provide pre-built applications such that a user may further customize the pre-built application via a “drag-and-drop” GUI. For instance, the platform may provide initial “pre-built” automations for “App Suites” (e.g., Inventory Management or Merchandising). In some cases, these initial automations may be generated based on industry knowledge and expertise) for creating, reading, updating, or deleting one or more data records associated with the at least one custom object definition (the visualization module is further configured to display, within a portal of the GUI, the selected data objects conforming to the data storage model. In some cases, a value of at least one of the selected data objects is modified via the GUI and a value of the corresponding selected data objects in the data cloud configuration is automatically updated via the first module. In some embodiments, the first module is configured to translate an instruction to perform an operation on at least one of the selected data objects received via the GUI into a database operation executable in the data cloud configuration. In some cases, the database operation is executed on the selected data objects in the data cloud configuration without using an extract, transform and load (ETL) data integration process) (see at least paragraphs 15-18, 97);
receiving, via the one or more third interfaces, a request to create a first data record associated with the at least one custom object definition (the visualization module is further configured to display, within a portal of the GUI, the selected data objects conforming to the data storage model. In some cases, a value of at least one of the selected data objects is modified via the GUI and a value of the corresponding selected data objects in the data cloud configuration is automatically updated via the first module. In some embodiments, the first module is configured to translate an instruction to perform an operation on at least one of the selected data objects received via the GUI into a database operation executable in the data cloud configuration. In some cases, the database operation is executed on the selected data objects in the data cloud configuration without using an extract, transform and load (ETL) data integration process) (see at least paragraphs 15-20, 97);
storing, in one or more databases, the first data record, wherein the first data record comprises a custom object type identifier correlating the first data record to the at least one custom object definition (the interactive flow is identified from a plurality of predefined workflows by a large language model (LLM). In some cases, the interactive flow is identified based at least in part on a data schema of the selected data objects stored in the data cloud configuration. In some cases, an output of the LLM comprises a list of instructions for creating the interactive flow) (see at least paragraphs 15-20, 97);
updating, based on the first data record, at least one index associated with the at least one index field (the visualization module is further configured to display, within a portal of the GUI, the selected data objects conforming to the data storage model. In some cases, a value of at least one of the selected data objects is modified via the GUI and a value of the corresponding selected data objects in the data cloud configuration is automatically updated via the first module. In some embodiments, the first module is configured to translate an instruction to perform an operation on at least one of the selected data objects received via the GUI into a database operation executable in the data cloud configuration. In some cases, the database operation is executed on the selected data objects in the data cloud configuration without using an extract, transform and load (ETL) data integration process) (see at least paragraphs 15-18, 97);
receiving, via the one or more second interfaces, at least one automated workflow definition (the data cloud configuration comprises one or more data clouds storing data objects, and wherein the data-driven workflow platform is granted permission to access, process, and edit the data objects stored on the one or more data clouds. In some embodiments, mapping the selected data objects to the data storage model comprises defining a relationship between the selected data objects and an element of the data storage model) comprising one or more conditions and one or more actions to be performed (the automation GUI 2100 may provide at least three fields including trigger 2101, condition 2103 and action 2105 allowing for convenient configuration of a triggers-conditions-actions type of automation) when the one or more conditions are satisfied (the rule further comprises a definition of condition for executing the action), wherein at least one action or condition of the automated workflow definition comprises a creation, read, update, or deletion of a data record associated with the custom object definition (the action is selected from the group consisting of add a watcher, update a field, send a notification, post a comment, assign to a user or a group, and create a record) (see at least paragraphs 6-17, 82-85);
evaluating the one or more conditions (A condition may define the particular value or state of a condition for the trigger. For example, the condition may be a new stage, days until or past due date, quantity over or under a threshold and the like. As illustrated in FIG. 22, the GUI may also allow a user to set up or define the conditions via a condition panel 2203. The condition panel 2203 may provide data fields such as filter by 2205 with auto-populated options. A user may select from a list of options provided in the drop-down menu 2205 to select a column to apply the filter. In some cases, the list of options may be automatically populated based on the connected data objects. A user may be permitted to further define the condition(s) for the filter (e.g., no value, greater than, equal, less than, between, greater than or equals, less than or equals, etc.) via the condition panel 2203. For example, a user may define a threshold value 2207 and relationship (e.g., equals) to apply the filter. In some cases, a user may create compound conditions (e.g., condition group) via the operator (e.g., AND, OR) 2208 to combine multiple conditions (e.g., filters) 2209. The GUI 2203 may also allow users to create complex conditions such as by adding a condition or a condition group 2211. The condition group may be added via any suitable operations (e.g., AND). The trigger event, and conditions may then be converted to a query language (e.g., Structured Query Language (SQL)) compatible with the database technology supported by the connected data cloud. In some cases, the trigger and condition of the trigger may be implemented via a data mining feature of the platform. For example, the data mining capability may automatically detect a change in the data as defined by the triggering event and the condition) (see at least paragraphs 86-89);
determining, based on the evaluating, that the one or more conditions are satisfied (triggering event; A condition may define the particular value or state of a condition for the trigger. For example, the condition may be a new stage, days until or past due date, quantity over or under a threshold and the like. As illustrated in FIG. 22, the GUI may also allow a user to set up or define the conditions via a condition panel 2203. The condition panel 2203 may provide data fields such as filter by 2205 with auto-populated options. A user may select from a list of options provided in the drop-down menu 2205 to select a column to apply the filter. In some cases, the list of options may be automatically populated based on the connected data objects. A user may be permitted to further define the condition(s) for the filter (e.g., no value, greater than, equal, less than, between, greater than or equals, less than or equals, etc.) via the condition panel 2203. For example, a user may define a threshold value 2207 and relationship (e.g., equals) to apply the filter. In some cases, a user may create compound conditions (e.g., condition group) via the operator (e.g., AND, OR) 2208 to combine multiple conditions (e.g., filters) 2209. The GUI 2203 may also allow users to create complex conditions such as by adding a condition or a condition group 2211. The condition group may be added via any suitable operations (e.g., AND). The trigger event, and conditions may then be converted to a query language (e.g., Structured Query Language (SQL)) compatible with the database technology supported by the connected data cloud. In some cases, the trigger and condition of the trigger may be implemented via a data mining feature of the platform. For example, the data mining capability may automatically detect a change in the data as defined by the triggering event and the condition) (see at least paragraphs 10-12, 86-89);
executing, responsive to the determining that the one or more conditions are satisfied, the one or more actions (the rule further comprises a definition of condition for executing the action), wherein executing the one or more actions comprises query planning based at least in part on the at least one index (The architecture may be a tiered architecture comprising data structures and storage layer, a services/platform logic layer and a visualization/API layer. The tiered architecture may allow users to access and use data stored in any Data Cloud without the need to move that data to a central location. The data-driven workflow platform may execute workloads (e.g., queries) within the Data Cloud provider (e.g., AWS S3, Snowflake, Databricks, External data provider, etc.) and then stream the data and/or insights back to the user via the user experience interface (UI) provided by the visualization module. In some cases, the platform may employ buffering techniques to allow for live streaming or updating from a Data Cloud to an enterprise SaaS solution. For example, the platform may cache an intermediary result generated during a workflow action for a pre-determined time period (e.g., 15 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds, etc.)) (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 86-89, 118).
With regard to Claim 3, Blonski teaches wherein the one or more other objects comprise at least one custom object defined through the one or more first interfaces (see at least paragraphs 10-12, 86-89).
With regard to Claim 4, Blonski teaches wherein the one or more other objects comprise at least one non-custom object native to an organizational data management application associated with the one or more databases (see at least paragraphs 4, 10-12).
With regard to Claim 6, Blonski teaches wherein the one or more second interfaces comprise a graphical user interface that enables no-code definition of one or more actions and no-code definition of one or more conditions (see at least paragraphs 4, 10-12).
With regard to Claim 7, Blonski teaches:
one or more first input components associated with the custom object definition (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85);
a plurality of second input components associated with a plurality of non-custom objects that are native to an application associated with the one or more second interfaces (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85);
wherein each of the second input components has a component type that is the same as a component type of each of the first input components (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 8, Blonski teaches:
the graphical user interface comprises at least one view comprising a plurality of respective input components associated with a plurality of respective fields of the custom object definition (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85);
generating the graphical user interface comprises determining, by the computing system for each respective input component of the plurality of respective input components, a respective component type based on a field type of a respective field of the plurality of respective fields (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 9, Blonski teaches:
storing, by the computing system responsive to receiving the at least one custom object definition, the at least one custom object definition in a data store (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85);
wherein automatically generating the one or more second interfaces comprises: retrieving, by the computing system, the at least one custom object definition from the data store (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 10, Blonski teaches:
determining, by the computing system based on one or more data access rules, that a first custom object defined through the one or more first interfaces should not be included in the one or more second interfaces (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85);
wherein the one or more second interfaces do not comprise a mechanism for including one or more actions or conditions associated with the first custom object (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 11, Blonski teaches:
determining, by the computing system based on one or more second data access rules, that a requester has have access to one or more first data records associated with a second custom object (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85);
providing, by the computing system to the requester, access to the one or more second data records without providing access to the one or more first data records (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 12, Blonski teaches automatically generating, based on the at least one custom object definition, one or more third interfaces for creating, reading, updating, or deleting one or more data records associated with the custom object definition (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 13, Blonski teaches wherein the one or more third interfaces comprise a webhook (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 70, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 14, Blonski teaches wherein the one or more third interfaces comprise an application programming interface (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 15, Blonski teaches wherein the one or more conditions comprise receiving, by the computing system via the one or more third interfaces, a request to create, read, update, or delete a data record associated with the at least one custom object definition (see at least paragraphs 3-17, 82-85).
With regard to Claim 16, Blonski teaches wherein the request is received from a third-party application (see at least paragraph 107).
With regard to Claim 17, Blonski teaches wherein the automated workflow definition comprises at least one of: one or more actions defined in a custom query language; and one or more conditions defined in a custom query language (see at least paragraphs 75, 86, 118).
With regard to Claim 18, Blonski teaches wherein a syntax of the custom query language with respect to custom objects is identical to a syntax of the custom query language with respect to non-custom objects (see at least paragraphs 75, 86, 118).
With regard to Claim 19, Blonski teaches wherein the at least one custom object definition comprises a user-defined data validation rule (see at least paragraph 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Scolnick et al. (US 2021/0141621)
Gunda et al. (AU 2022307040 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624