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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 16 are objected to: Claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 16) recites asynchronous (require waiting) and synchronous (without waiting). The well-known accepted meaning of the terms asynchronous and synchronous is contrary to how the terms are used within the claim and specification.
Claims 1-20 are objected to: The applicant is made aware of the following: The subsequent claims filed on 7/17/2024 does not have any markups and/or any indication to the status of claims from originally filed claim on 5/14/2024. The claims filed on 7/17/2024 seems to be identical to the originally filed claim. The applicant is advised to markup any/all claims with amendments along with the status of the claims (i.e. original, currently amended, previously presented, etc.).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, recites: “if” and/or “when” conditional statements. The examiner is unclear if the intention of the applicant was to use the above-mentioned conditional language. In the interest of prosecution, the examiner will interpret the terms “if” and “when” as a conditional language.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 2, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 17) recites the limitation “the nodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites nodes supported for selection, asynchronous nodes and synchronous nodes. The examiner is unclear which of the nodes, “the nodes” is referring to since there is no positive selection of any kinds of nodes for execution.
Furthermore, “in response to a node selection operation” only mentions selection of “a node” (single). Therefore, nodes (plural) are not selected.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19) recites the limitation “the service process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unclear if “the service process” is referring to the “to-be-orchestrated service process” or some other service process.
Claim 2 (similarly claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 17-19) recites the limitation “the process instance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unclear if “the process instance” is referring to the “one process instance” or something other process instance.
Claim 3 (similarly claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18 and 19) recites the limitation “the asynchronous node”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unclear which asynchronous node, the asynchronous node is referring to.
Claim 3 (similarly claims 7, and 18) recite: “preset modes”. The examiner is unclear what “preset mode” is referring to. The specification recites various terms such as preset methods, logic preset, preset cycle period, preset condition, preset threshold, etc. However, “preset mode” is nowhere to be found.
Claim 4 (similarly claims 9, 13 and 19) recite: “consistent” and/or “continue to execute nodes”. The examiner is unclear how the term “consistent” should be interpreted. The examiner is unclear which nodes are being executed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the updated form data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unclear what is being referred by “the updated form data”.
Claim 13 (similarly claim 14) recite: “wherein generation rules of the branch”. The examiner is unclear what generation rule is being referred to.
Claim 13 recite: “the node belongs in all values”. The examiner is unclear what this limitation should be interpreted.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9 and 13-19 recites: “the nodes”, “the node identifier”, “the process identifier”, “the process instance identifier”, “the branch identifier”, and/or “the asynchronous node” without clearly providing antecedent bases for the term(s).
Claims 2-14 and 17-20 are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim.
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 (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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leonelli et al. (Pub 20170344921) (hereafter Leonelli).
As per claim 1, Leonelli teaches:
A process orchestration method, comprising:
generating a to-be-orchestrated service process, in response to a node selection operation and a node parameter configuration operation based on an interface, wherein nodes supported for selection by the node selection operation comprise synchronous nodes and asynchronous nodes, wherein the synchronous nodes represent tasks which are capable of being executed without waiting for an external action, and the asynchronous nodes represent tasks which need to wait for an external action to be executed; and ([Paragraph 252], The web-service parameters also include information for selecting the web-service from a set of web services offered by the remote-web server 516; and/or information for designating a method of execution of the web-service. [Paragraph 22], Embodiments of the present invention relate to method and apparatus for facilitating a generation, deployment and/or execution of a workflow over a network. Using a graphical user interface on a user device, a user defines a workflow for execution at remote devices, such as, devices providing remote services, for example, FACEBOOK, AMAZON, TWITTER, DROPBOX, email, fileserver, and the like. [Paragraph 37], The GUI software 110 is/are used to select the appropriate network setting widgets 135, and to receive input related to one or more network settings. Each captured network setting is/are referred to as an instance of the network setting widget 135, and each network setting corresponds to execution of a task(s) or a part thereof, and communication setting between the devices involved in execution of such task(s). [Paragraph 294], The launch-workflow task, as represented by the workflow widget 132.sub.30, causes the host-application server 324 to (i) select the recorded workflow from the recorded-workflow records 528, and (ii) trigger an execution of the recorded workflow. To trigger the execution, the launch-workflow task causes the host-application server 324 to obtain from the content records 526 the input information for the execution of the recorded workflow. In addition, the launch-workflow task causes the host-application server 324 to execute the recorded workflow in a synchronous or an asynchronous mode. [Paragraph 295], In the synchronous mode, the launch-workflow task cause the host-application server 324 to execute and complete the recorded workflow before executing another task in the workflow or in the workflow branch containing the launch-workflow task. Following the execution of the recorded workflow, the launch-workflow task cause the host-application server 324 to store in content records 526 the results from the execution of the recorded workflow as input information for another of the tasks. [Paragraph 296], In asynchronous mode, the launch-workflow task cause the host-application server 324 to execute the recorded workflow, and without waiting for completion of the recorded workflow, continue execution of other tasks of the workflow or in the workflow branch containing the launch-workflow task. The launch-workflow task might not cause the host-application server 324 to obtain the input information for another task.)
executing the nodes in the service process successively according to an order of the nodes in the service process. ([Paragraph 30], Each of the workflow-sequencing records 118.sub.1-118.sub.m corresponds to a sequencing of one task to another task. To facilitate this, each of the workflow-sequencing records 118.sub.1-118.sub.m include one or more parameters associated with such sequencing (“sequence parameters”). The sequence parameters include an indication of the tasks for sequencing, an order of execution of the tasks, a set of conditions governing the order of execution of the tasks and/or one or more references to services, settings, rules, variables, expressions, templates, characteristics, directives, commands, etc. for generating, deploying and/or executing the sequencing. [Paragraph 123], Alternatively, the remote devices 504-517 are formed from two or more separate devices, and as such, are distributed among a number of server, client, peer or other type nodes.)
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Leonelli teaches wherein attributes of the nodes comprise node identifier, process instance identifier and branch identifier, wherein the node identifier is used to identify different nodes in the service process;
each time the service process runs, one process instance is generated, and the process instance identifier is used to identify the process instance to which the node belongs; and
the process instance comprises one or more branches, and the branch identifier is used to identify a branch to which the node belongs; and the branch is a concurrent execution branch in the process instance. ([Paragraph 87], The network setting libraries 341 catalogs and cross-references all network connectivity configuration information for easy querying, and include modules for searching and/or identifying relevant information for a particular task, device or other network connectivity related parameters. [Paragraph 159], Some of start task parameters is/are common to other tasks and/or the workflow as a whole. The common start task parameters include a workflow-name entry, a workflow-description entry, a workflow-author entry, a workflow-version entry and a log-level entry. [Paragraph 162], For each of the following tasks, the task parameters include respective name entries and description entries. Except as otherwise described, each of the name entries include a name assigned to the corresponding task so to identify a particular instance of it, and is/are expressed as a character, a string of characters, a variable, an expression, etc. [Paragraph 170], This information is/are, for example, a name or address assigned to or otherwise associated with message records 518 and/or the second endpoint device 506. Alternatively, the information is/are a reference, pointer, uniform-resource identifier (‘URI”) or other indicator to a location of the message records 518 in the memory 328 and/or to name or address of the second endpoint device 506. [Paragraph 97], This is done for efficiency (e.g., by analyzing the parse information and determining an optimally-efficient execution sequence), handing branching, handling errors, generating alternate or backup network connections and/or configurations, etc. [Paragraph 166], The workflow includes more than one stop task, when, for example, the workflow includes more than one alternative path of execution or “branch” of tasks (“workflow branches”). By way of example, the workflow branches include first and second branches. The first branch terminates with a first stop task, and the second branch terminates with a second stop task. In this case, the GUI software 110 configure the first and second stop task parameters by setting the termination settings of both the first and second stop tasks to normal terminations so as to cause the workflow to terminate respective workflow branches only. When so configured, the GUI software 110 sets the flag so as to indicate that the input information that undergoes processing by the tasks of the first and second branches are considered fully processed. [Paragraph 295], In the synchronous mode, the launch-workflow task cause the host-application server 324 to execute and complete the recorded workflow before executing another task in the workflow or in the workflow branch containing the launch-workflow task. Following the execution of the recorded workflow, the launch-workflow task cause the host-application server 324 to store in content records 526 the results from the execution of the recorded workflow as input information for another of the tasks. [Paragraph 299], The recorded-workflow-input definition includes information for retrieving or otherwise obtaining from content records 526 the input information for the recorded-workflow input. This information include a name or address assigned to or otherwise associated with the content records 526 or, alternatively, a pointer to a location of the content records 526 on the memory 328.)
As per claims 15 and 17, these are device claims corresponding to the method claims 1 and 2. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
As per claim 16, this is a computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONG U KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1313. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 5712723338. 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.
/DONG U KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights