DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing on 07/15/2024. Claims 1-7 have been fully examined and are pending.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recite mental processes and mere data elements on a generic computer or generic computer components without creating a significant, novel improvement or change to the computer.
Claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a device, therefore a product.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract idea
Claim 1 recites,
determine whether or not a nested state of a control structure of the operation flow … This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
determine that an error is included in the operation flow… This limitation recites a step of performing a determination, or making a judgement, which may be performed practically in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 1 additionally recites,
accept input of operation flow indicating a series of operations... This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
specify, in a case where it is determined that an error is included in the operation flow… This limitation is a step that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 additionally recites,
An input acceptance unit, including one or more processors … a determination unit, including one or more processors … an error output unit, including one or more processors … merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Significantly More
Claim 1 additionally recites,
accept input of operation flow indicating a series of operations... This limitation is a step that merely obtains data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
specify, in a case where it is determined that an error is included in the operation flow… This limitation is a step that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 additionally recites,
An input acceptance unit, including one or more processors … a determination unit, including one or more processors … an error output unit, including one or more processors … merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites,
… determine that nesting of the control structure is in an incomplete state
This limitation recites a step of performing a determination, or making a judgement, which may be performed practically in the human mind (by an expert; see specification [0012; 0013; and 0036]). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites,
… determine that an error is included in the operation flow in a case where a backward error …
This limitation recites a step of performing a determination, or making an observation, which may be observed practically in the human mind (see visual examples, Fig. 12). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites,
… determine whether or not a number of input edges and a number of output edges permitted for a type of node are satisfied for each type of node of the operation flow This limitation recites a step of performing a determination, or making a judgement, which may be performed practically in the human mind (by an expert; see specification [0013; with, as example, 0014]). Furthermore, performing a numerical comparison is an act that may be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
… determine that an error is included in the operation flow … This limitation recites a step of performing a determination, or making a judgement, which may be performed practically in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 4 additionally recites,
the error output unit is configured to specify a node… This limitation is a step that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites,
… at the error output unit, the information on the error node includes…
This limitation is a step that merely outputs data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 recites a method, therefore a process, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by the same grounds of rejection as Claim 1, above.
Claim 7 recites a product and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by the same grounds of rejection as Claim 1, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Pugh et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20200012656), further in view of Cole et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10394691).
Regarding Claim 1, Pugh teaches,
An editing support device comprising: an input acceptance unit, including one or more processors, configured to accept input of operation flow indicating a series of operations on a computer by nodes indicating the operations and an edge connecting the nodes (the system displays a flow plane having a plurality of nodes wherein each node corresponds to an operation [0022]; where the process includes accepting input to select and modify nodes (operations) [0022]);
a determination unit, including one or more processors, configured to determine whether or not a nested state of a control structure of the operation flow is in an incomplete state on a basis of a connection relationship between the nodes of the operation flow (prior to determining type check errors [0396], type environments are determined including container and children type environments ("nesting") [0389] where incompleteness is determined while determining type errors [0396])
and determine that an error is included in the operation flow in a case where it is determined that the nested state is in the incomplete state (error conditions, including transient system issues, error conditions, and implicit constraints, are determined [0260]; where most of the type errors are found during the type checking stage, immediately after calculating the initial type environments [0396]);
Pugh discloses use of a display [0022], but does not appear to disclose and Cole teaches,
and an error output unit, including one or more processors, configured to specify, in a case where it is determined that an error is included in the operation flow, a node that is a cause of the error in the operation flow as an error node and output information on the specified error node (the system displays ("outputs") the lineage and location of an error at the respective nodes [Col. 56, lines 33-37]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the interactive user interface which determines errors in an operation flow of Pugh with the display locating erroneous nodes of Cole. The resulting combination allows for the user to help identify the original cause of the error, which improves the user's ability to understand the cause of the error [Col. 1, lines 56-64].
Regarding Claim 2, Pugh teaches,
The editing support device according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the operation flow includes an edge corresponding to goto, the determination unit is configured to determine that nesting of the control structure is in an incomplete state (the system will raise an error if a node calls a second node that has not yet been added to the operation flow ("goto" error) [0347]).
Regarding Claim 3, Pugh teaches,
The editing support device according to Claim 1 wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that an error is included in the operation flow in a case where a backward error is included in the operation flow or a start/end combination abnormality error is included in the operation flow (the system will raise an error if node data modifications would cause an error during backtracking ("backward" error) [0398]).
Regarding Claim 5, Pugh does not appear to disclose and Cole teaches,
The editing support device according to claim 1 wherein at the error output unit, the information on the error node includes information indicating a cause of the error (the system displays ("outputs") the lineage and location of an error at the respective nodes [Col. 56, lines 33-37]; which is information that indicates the cause of the error [Col. 1, lines 56-64]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 5.
Claim 6 recites a shift in statutory category and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claim 1.
Claim 7 recites a shift in statutory category and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stan (U.S. Patent No. 11294793) discloses a system employing an RPA activity to generate a workflow implementing a target practice [Col. 4, lines 19-33], including generating error warnings for target elements (“nodes”) including cause of error [Col. 12, lines 22-24], which may use XML [Col. 4, lines 53-59].
Yang et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20150052095) includes generating models mindful of erroneous relationships between elements in light of design policies, including determining if the selected process violates deployment policy [0019].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113