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 2/2/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed August 21, 2025. Claims 1, 11 and 20 were amended, claims 2-10 and 12-19 were left as previously presented. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 22, 2025 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102/103 has been fully considered and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balakrishnan et al. referred herein as Balakrishnan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0004903) in view of Stall (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0018206).
As to claims 1, 11 and 20, Balakrishnan teaches a method, system and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
detecting an event associated with an entity; (para 20)
mapping the event to a customer-defined workflow in a journey based on content of the event; (para 58-61)
generating a tacit workflow in the journey based on the mapping of the event, the tacit workflow including one or more steps configured based on a setting associated with the customer-defined workflow; (para 58-61)
processing, using a state machine associated with the journey, the tacit workflow in accordance with the one or more steps. (fig. 2 step 208-210)
Balakrishnan does not teach:
The tacit workflow running concurrently with the customer-defined workflow with the journey
However, Stall teaches:
The tacit workflow running concurrently with the customer-defined workflow with the journey (para 38 and 41)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to run concurrent workflows in Balakrishnan as taught by Stall. Motivation to so comes from the knowledge taught by Stall that doing so would insure that all tasks are being completed.
As to claims 2 and 12, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan further teaches:
wherein the customer-defined workflow runs concurrently with the tacit workflow, wherein the customer-defined workflow is configured by the entity, and wherein the tacit workflow is automatically generated based on the setting associated with the customer-defined workflow. (para 39 and 76)
As to claims 3 and 13, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan further teaches:
wherein the event comprises contextual data that can be referenced by one or more steps in the customer-defined workflow and by one or more steps in the tacit workflow. (para 102-103)
As to claims 4 and 14, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan further teaches:
determining that the content of the event satisfies a definition of the journey; (para 58-61 and 70)
in response to determining that the content of the event satisfies the definition of the journey, mapping the event to the customer-defined workflow in the journey. (para 58-61 and 70)
As to claims 5 and 15, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan further teaches:
identifying contextual data based on the event, the contextual data at least including an item identifier; (para 102-103)
generating the tacit workflow based on the item identifier included in the contextual data. (para 102-103)
Claims 6-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balakrishnan et al. referred herein as Balakrishnan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0004903) in view of Stall (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0018206), further in view of Rodriguez et al. referred herein as Rodriguez (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0034999).
As to claim 6, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan does not teach:
determining that the event does not correspond to a rescheduling event;
in response to determining that the event is not the rescheduling event, generating the tacit workflow in the journey based on the mapping of the event.
However, Rodriguez teaches:
determining that the event does not correspond to a rescheduling event; (para 39-41)
in response to determining that the event is not the rescheduling event, generating the tacit workflow in the journey based on the mapping of the event. (para 39-41)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine scheduling/rescheduling events in a system in Balakrishnan in view of Stall as taught by Rodriguez. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodriguez that providing event management capabilities using a platform would allow the backend server to operate efficiently to provide user experience.
As to claim 7, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan and Stall do not teach:
wherein the tacit workflow comprises an exit workflow..
However, Rodriguez teaches:
wherein the tacit workflow comprises an exit workflow.. (para 39-41)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine scheduling/rescheduling events in a system in Balakrishnan in view of Stall as taught by Rodriguez. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodriguez that providing event management capabilities using a platform would allow the backend server to operate efficiently to provide user experience.
As to claims 8 and 17, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan and Stall do not teach:
wherein the event is a first event, and wherein the tacit workflow is a first tacit workflow, comprising: detecting a second event associated with the entity;
determining that the second event corresponds to a rescheduling event, the first event corresponding to an appointment booking event;
generating a second tacit workflow in the journey based on the mapping of the event, the second tacit workflow comprising a reset workflow that is configured based on the setting associated with the customer-defined workflow.
However, Rodriguez teaches:
wherein the event is a first event, and wherein the tacit workflow is a first tacit workflow, comprising: detecting a second event associated with the entity; (para 39-41)
determining that the second event corresponds to a rescheduling event, the first event corresponding to an appointment booking event; (para 39-41)
generating a second tacit workflow in the journey based on the mapping of the event, the second tacit workflow comprising a reset workflow that is configured based on the setting associated with the customer-defined workflow. (para 39-41)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine scheduling/rescheduling events in a system in Balakrishnan in view of Stall as taught by Rodriguez. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodriguez that providing event management capabilities using a platform would allow the backend server to operate efficiently to provide user experience.
As to claims 9 and 18, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claims 8 and 17 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan further teaches:
processing the first tacit workflow, the second tacit workflow, and the customer-defined workflow concurrently in the journey. (para 39 and 76)
As to claims 10 and 19, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claims 8 and 17 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan and Stall do not teach:
updating one or more steps in the customer-defined workflow based on the second event that corresponds to the rescheduling event.
However, Rodriguez teaches:
updating one or more steps in the customer-defined workflow based on the second event that corresponds to the rescheduling event. (para 39-41)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine scheduling/rescheduling events in a system in Balakrishnan in view of Stall as taught by Rodriguez. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodriguez that providing event management capabilities using a platform would allow the backend server to operate efficiently to provide user experience.
As to claim 16, Balakrishnan in view of Stall teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Balakrishnan and Stall do not teach:
determining that the event does not correspond to a rescheduling event;
in response to determining that the event is not the rescheduling event, generating the tacit workflow in the journey based on the mapping of the event, the tacit workflow comprising an exit workflow.
However, Rodriguez teaches:
determining that the event does not correspond to a rescheduling event; (para 39-41)
in response to determining that the event is not the rescheduling event, generating the tacit workflow in the journey based on the mapping of the event, the tacit workflow comprising an exit workflow; (para 39-41)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine scheduling/rescheduling events in a system in Balakrishnan in view of Stall as taught by Rodriguez. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodriguez that providing event management capabilities using a platform would allow the backend server to operate efficiently to provide user experience.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628