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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 27, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim interpretation
Claims 1 and 20 as they are do not require instructions but processor and medium. Applicant is advised to delete “for” in line 3 of claim 1 and in line 1 of claim 20 to positively include “instructions” as a part of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “pagination engine” in claims 1 and 11, “action engine” in claims 1 and 11, “triggering engine” in claims 6 and 16, and “orchestration engine” in claims 7 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure can be found in paragraph [00100] that discloses:
“Certain embodiments are described herein as including logic or a number of components, components, elements, or mechanisms. Such components can constitute either software components (e.g., code embodied on a machine-readable medium or in a transmission signal) or hardware components.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10 and 19 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 10, line 4, “the action” is unclear whether it refers to “an action” in lines 2-3 of claim 10 or “an action” in line 12 of claim 1. For the following prior art rejection, “the action” in line 4 of claim 10 is treated as --an action--.
Claim 19, line 4, “the action” is unclear whether it refers to “an action” in lines 2-3 of claim 19 or “an action” in line 8 of claim 11. For the following prior art rejection, “the action” in line 4 of claim 19 is treated as --an action--.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a machine, claims 11-19 are directed to a process, and claim 20 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite:
receiving, via an Application Programming Interface (API), a triggering event, the triggering event corresponding to a job description;
identifying a paging entity and an action entity based on the job description;
retrieving, using a pagination engine, job data from a data source based on the paging entity, the pagination engine being integrated with a plurality of data sources for job data retrieval; and
performing, using an action engine, an action on the job data based on the action entity, the action engine being integrated with a plurality of downstream components for action processing.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The “receiving” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the person receiving information.
The “identifying” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an identification.
The “performing” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an action.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The “retrieving” limitation above, as claimed and under (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “retrieving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
one or more hardware processors (claims 1 and 20)
at least one machine-storage medium (claim 1)
instructions (claims 1 and 20)
an Application Programming Interface (API) (claims 1, 11, 20)
a machine-storage medium (claim 20)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regard to the “retrieving” limitation above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception or links the judicial exception to a technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2 and 12 recite:
identifying the job description based on the triggering event;
in response to identifying the job description, generating a job instance based on the job description; and
executing the job instance, the executing of the job instance including using the action engine to perform the action on the job data retrieved by the pagination engine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The “identifying” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an identification.
The “generating” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the person creating a job instance.
The “executing” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “executing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an action.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claims 3 and 13 recite:
wherein the paging entity specifies the job data and the data source from the plurality of data sources where the job data is retrieved, and wherein the action entity specifies the action and a downstream component associated with the action
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as referenced above.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claims 4 and 14 recite:
wherein the plurality of data sources comprises one or more of a plurality of databases, a plurality of services, and a plurality of distributed computing frameworks that enable distributed processing of large datasets across clusters of computing hardware.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as referenced above.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
One or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a plurality of distributed computing frameworks (claims 4 and 14)
clusters of computing hardware (claims 4 and 14)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception or links the judicial exception to a technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 5 and 15 recite:
wherein the pagination engine communicates with the plurality of data sources using one of Application Programming Interface (API), Structured query language (SQL), or Domain-specific Language (DSL).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as referenced above.
The “communicates” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “communicates” in the context of this claim encompasses the person communicating.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
One or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
Application Programming Interface (API) (claims 5 and 15)
Structured query language (SQL) (claims 5 and 15)
Domain-specific Language (DSL) (claims 5 and 15)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception or links the judicial exception to a technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 6 and 16 recite:
in response to receiving the triggering event, identifying the paging entity and the action entity using a trigger engine, the trigger engine being integrated with one or more users and one or more applications that generate a plurality of triggering events.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as referenced above.
The “receiving” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the person receiving information
The “identifying” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an identification.
The “generate” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the person creating a job instance.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
one or more applications (claims 6 and 16)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception or links the judicial exception to a technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 7 and 17 recite:
coordinating, using an orchestration engine, communication between the trigger engine, the pagination engine, and the action engine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as referenced above.
The “coordinating” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “coordinating” in the context of this claim encompasses the person coordinating communication.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claims 8 and 18 recite:
the paging entity comprises one or more of an endpoint, a parameter, a data source type, and a path.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as referenced above.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claims 9 and 19 recite:
wherein the parameter describes the job data to be retrieved using the pagination engine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, as referenced above.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
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.
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, 3-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. US 10452360 B1, hereinafter “Burman”) in view of Meyer et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No US 11709660 B1, hereinafter “Meyer”).
With regard to claim 1, Burman discloses:
A system (“system”, col 3, line 28) comprising:
one or more hardware processors (“one or more processors”, col 2, lines 25-26); and
at least one machine-storage medium for storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations (“a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations”, col 3, lines 16-19) comprising:
receiving, (“During the workflow execution phase, a trigger event may cause the workflow to begin execution.”, col 2, lines 11-12, “Once it is determined that the trigger has fired, the workflow is executed. This includes execution of the designed action with input as specified in the workflow design phase. Any other flows, subflows, and actions that are part of the workflow may also be executed.”, col 28, lines 45-19);
identifying a paging entity (i.e. “dynamic inputs”) (“Workflow design phase 902 is depicted in FIGS. 8A-8F. In it, the user specifies a trigger and a flow. The flow may include the designed action. If so, the options for the dynamic inputs (as defined in the action design phase) are dynamically retrieved by way of the remote service API.”, col 28, lines 35-39) and an action entity (i.e. designed action) (“Workflow execution phase 904 is depicted in FIGS. 6A-6K and may be automatically carried out (e.g., by the user's computational instance). Once it is determined that the trigger has fired, the workflow is executed. This includes execution of the designed action with input as specified in the workflow design phase.”, col 28, lines 43-48) based on the job description (“Such a tool presents the workflow designer with options for defining the states, transitions, triggers, actions, input data, output data, and other characteristics of the workflow.”, col 17, lines 49-52);
retrieving, using a pagination engine (i.e. remote service API”), job data (i.e. “tables and/or fields”) from a data source (i.e. “remote services”) based on the paging entity (“The flow may include the designed action. If so, the options for the dynamic inputs (as defined in the action design phase) are dynamically retrieved by way of the remote service API”, col 28, lines 36-39, “Dynamic action inputs 722 allow the output of another pre-defined action to be used in this input. The action field allows selection of such an action. The drop-down arrow to the right of the action field can be selected or otherwise activated to cause a drop-down menu to appear. FIG. 7C shows such a drop-down menu 730. In addition to a search field in which the user can enter text, drop-down menu 730 includes options for dynamically retrieving rgb-hr.com tables or fields from rgb-hr.com tables. In further embodiments, drop-down menu 730 may include any number of pre-defined actions or sub-actions (where an action may include one or more discrete sub-actions), such as getting tables and/or fields thereof from other remote services, from a database within the user's computational instance, or from other computational instances of the remote network management platform.”, col 24, line 65-col 25, line 13, “But these embodiments of an action design tool can also be used in other ways to specify non-table-based dynamic inputs as well, such as dynamic input from a web site, web component, file, etc.”, col 26, lines 6-9, 722, 730, fig. 7c), the pagination engine being integrated with a plurality of data sources for job data retrieval (“The flow may include the designed action. If so, the options for the dynamic inputs (as defined in the action design phase) are dynamically retrieved by way of the remote service API”, col 28, lines 36-39, “as getting tables and/or fields thereof from other remote services, from a database within the user's computational instance, or from other computational instances of the remote network management platform”, col 25, lines 9-13); and
performing, using an action engine (i.e. “user’s computational instance”), an action on the job data based on the action entity (“Workflow execution phase 904 is depicted in FIGS. 6A-6K and may be automatically carried out (e.g., by the user's computational instance). Once it is determined that the trigger has fired, the workflow is executed. This includes execution of the designed action with input as specified in the workflow design phase. Any other flows, subflows, and actions that are part of the workflow may also be executed.”, col 28, lines 13-49, “While not shown or discussed in detail herein, the other steps in pane 702 may involve displaying different information on pane 704 so that the action can be fully specified. The create task step may serve to create a task record in the computational instance (e.g., representing a unit of work to be carried out by a particular individual or group), potentially using some of the defined inputs.”, col 24, lines 4-10), the action engine being integrated with a plurality of downstream components for action processing (“As shown in FIG. 3, remote network management platform 320 includes four computational instances 322, 324, 326, and 328. Each of these instances may represent one or more server devices and/or one or more databases that provide a set of web portals, services, and applications (e.g., a wholly-functioning aPaaS system) available to a particular customer.”, col 10, lines 37-43).
Burman does not disclose however, Rosen discloses:
receiving, via an Application Programming Interface (API), a triggering event (“A trigger condition may be an event, such as a user event that is received via an API notification from the application builder platform 130 indicating the user has performed an action.”, col 15, lines 24-27),
Both the systems of Burman and Rosen deal with receiving computing events. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify receiving a trigger event to include an API because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, an API is one of a predictable and ascertainable group of similar features. This group addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of receiving data with a reasonable level of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to modify receiving a trigger event to include an API since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need (as discussed above) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 3, Burman as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Burman further discloses:
wherein the paging entity specifies the job data (i.e. “tables and/or fields”) and the data source (i.e. “other remote service”) from the plurality of data sources (i.e. “a database within the user's computational instance, or from other computational instances”) where the job data is retrieved (“FIG. 7C shows such a drop-down menu 730. In addition to a search field in which the user can enter text, drop-down menu 730 includes options for dynamically retrieving rgb-hr.com tables or fields from rgb-hr.com tables. In further embodiments, drop-down menu 730 may include any number of pre-defined actions or sub-actions (where an action may include one or more discrete sub-actions), such as getting tables and/or fields thereof from other remote services, from a database within the user's computational instance, or from other computational instances of the remote network management platform.”), and wherein the action entity specifies the action (i.e. “a unit of work to be carried out”) and a downstream component (i.e. “a particular individual or group”) associated with the action (“Pane 702 includes the steps of action definition”, “While not shown or discussed in detail herein, the other steps in pane 702 may involve displaying different information on pane 704 so that the action can be fully specified. The create task step may serve to create a task record in the computational instance (e.g., representing a unit of work to be carried out by a particular individual or group), potentially using some of the defined inputs.”).
With regard to claim 4, Burman as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Burman further discloses:
wherein the plurality of data sources comprises one or more (“as getting tables and/or fields thereof from other remote services, from a database within the user's computational instance, or from other computational instances of the remote network management platform”).
With regard to claim 5, Burman as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Burman further discloses:
wherein the pagination engine communicates with the plurality of data sources using one of Application Programming Interface (API), (“The flow may include the designed action. If so, the options for the dynamic inputs (as defined in the action design phase) are dynamically retrieved by way of the remote service API”, “FIG. 7C shows such a drop-down menu 730. In addition to a search field in which the user can enter text, drop-down menu 730 includes options for dynamically retrieving rgb-hr.com tables or fields from rgb-hr.com tables. In further embodiments, drop-down menu 730 may include any number of pre-defined actions or sub-actions (where an action may include one or more discrete sub-actions), such as getting tables and/or fields thereof from other remote services, from a database within the user's computational instance, or from other computational instances of the remote network management platform.”).
With regard to claim 8, Burman as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Burman further discloses:
wherein the paging entity comprises one or more of (i.e. “type column”), (“Pane 704 contains a set of columns for specifying inputs. Label column 706 indicates sources of the inputs, type column 708 indicates whether the associated input is a based on a dynamic choice (e.g., from a menu) or a dynamic template (e.g., from a list of key-value pairs), and mandatory column 710 indicates whether the presence of the associated input is required.”).
With regard to claim 9, Burman as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Burman further discloses:
wherein the parameter (i.e. “type column”) describes the job data to be retrieved using the pagination engine (“type column 708 indicates whether the associated input is a based on a dynamic choice (e.g., from a menu) or a dynamic template (e.g., from a list of key-value pairs)”).
With regard to claim 10, Burman as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Burman further discloses:
wherein the action entity comprises one or more of an endpoint (i.e. “a unit of work to be carried out”) (“Pane 702 includes the steps of action definition”, “While not shown or discussed in detail herein, the other steps in pane 702 may involve displaying different information on pane 704 so that the action can be fully specified. The create task step may serve to create a task record in the computational instance (e.g., representing a unit of work to be carried out by a particular individual or group), potentially using some of the defined inputs.”),
With regard to claim 11, the limitations except those addressed below are rejected using the
mapping from analogous claim 1.
Burman discloses:
A method (“methods”, col 4, line 9) comprising:
With regard to claim 13, Burman as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 3.
With regard to claim 14, Burman as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 4.
With regard to claim 15, Burman as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 5.
With regard to claim 18, Burman as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claims 8 and 9.
With regard to claim 19, Burman as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 10.
With regard to claim 20, the limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 1.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burman and Meyer as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20010039594 A1, hereinafter “Park”).
With regard to claim 2, Burman as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Burman further discloses:
wherein the operations comprise:
identifying the job description based on the triggering event (“During the workflow execution phase, a trigger event may cause the workflow to begin execution.”, col 2, lines 11-12, “Once it is determined that the trigger has fired, the workflow is executed. This includes execution of the designed action with input as specified in the workflow design phase. Any other flows, subflows, and actions that are part of the workflow may also be executed.”, col 28, lines 45-19);
the job data retrieved by the pagination engine.
Burman does not disclose however, Park discloses:
in response to identifying the job description (i.e. “job specification”), generating a job instance based on the job description (“Multiple instantiations of a single job specification may be made. Each instance of the job runs on the server 104 until an end state is reached.”, para [0042]); and
executing the job instance (“Multiple instantiations of a single job specification may be made. Each instance of the job runs on the server 104 until an end state is reached.”, para [0042]), the executing of the job instance including using the action engine to perform the action (i.e. “task”) on the job data (i.e. “files”) (“Multiple instantiations of a single job specification may be made. Each instance of the job runs on the server 104 until an end state is reached.”, para [0042], “One or more task sections that describe specific tasks to occur as part of the job follow the initial <workflow> section of the job specification file.”, para [0036], “a task is performed in a work area 502 in which files 504 are modified”, para [0060]).
Both the systems of Burman and Park deal with computing jobs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Burman as modified in view of Visconti to improve management of job processing.
With regard to claim 12, Burman as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sutton et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. US 11726818 B1, hereinafter “Sutton”) discloses: “At operation 604, data is retrieved. For example, sequencing engine 202 may retrieve the data that corresponds to the input parameters in the model definition from data repository 112.”, col 11, lines 64-67, “To determine the sequence, sequencing engine 202 may retrieve task definitions for tasks 206A-C from task repository 110 or a memory internal to sequencing engine 202, and use the task definitions to identify the input and output parameters of each task in tasks 206A-C.”, col 5, lines 50-55.
Alsina et al. (CN Patent Application No. CN 106251889 B, hereinafter “Alsina”) discloses: “predicting engine 302 can receive the triggering event, such as trigger event 228 discussed in FIG. 2. prediction engine 302 can use information collection from the trigger event 228 to identify recommended application 304. As shown, in addition to trigger event 228, the prediction engine 302 may also receive context data 306. Application of the prediction engine 302 can use the slave trigger event 228 and context information 306 collected information to identify the suggested 304. predicting engine 302 also determines the action to be performed, such as when providing the user interface and interaction to the application of suggestions to the user.” (English translation, page 18, last paragraph).
Reitbauer et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. US 20210255917 A1, hereinafter “Reitbauer”) discloses: “An automation workflow engine 210 may receive automation run trigger events 200 via a workflow control interface 211, fetch 216 an automation configuration 218 for the received trigger event from an automation config repository and then execute the fetched automation config.”, para [0046].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELENA SABAH NAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-6115. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM -5:30 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, Hyung Sough can be reached at (571) 272-6799. 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.
/S.S.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
