DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 1 July 2024, claiming benefit back to 25 October 2018.
Claims 21 – 40 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/232,622 filed on 10 August 2023, now U.S. Patent 12,026,646 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of claims below, claim 1 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 21 of the instant application.
U.S. 12,026,646
1. A method of enabling communication with task-interaction providers, the method comprising:
accessing, by a computing device, at least one task;
determining, by the computing device, a connector for the at least one task, wherein the connector comprises a proxy for communicating with a first task-interaction provider;
transmitting, by the computing device, the at least one task via the determined connector to the first task-interaction provider;
receiving, by the computing device, a response from the first task-interaction provider;
identifying a second task-interaction provider different from the first task-interaction provider;
configuring the response from the first task-interaction provider in accordance with the second task-interaction provider; and
transmitting the configured response to the second task-interaction provider.
Instant Application
21. A method of enabling communication with task-interaction providers, the method comprising:
accessing, by a computing device, at least one task;
transmitting, by the computing device, the at least one task via the determined connector to the first task-interaction provider via a communication proxy;
receiving, by the computing device, a response from the first task-interaction provider via the communication proxy;
configuring the response from the first task-interaction provider in accordance with a second task-interaction provider; and
transmitting the configured response to the second task-interaction provider.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 22 of the instant application.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 23 of the instant application.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 24 of the instant application.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 25 of the instant application.
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 26 of the instant application.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 27 of the instant application.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 28 of the instant application.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 29 of the instant application.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the ‘646 patent would anticipate claim 30 of the instant application.
Claims 31 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 – 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,646 (‘646 patent), using the same rationale as used in respect to claims 21 – 30.
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 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 of this title, 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 29 – 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Agarwal et al. (U.S. 2014/0214478, hereinafter Agarwal), in further view of Thacker et al. (US 2014/0081685, hereinafter Thacker).
In respect to claim 21, Agarwal discloses a method of enabling communication with task-interaction providers, the method comprising:
accessing, by a computing device, at least one task (see at least [0032] In some contexts, the MES application 112 may be referred to as the production control layer of the system 100. The MES application 112 may provide automation for collection of production information, analysis of production information, shipping and dispatch of product, product traceability, and other automated functionality. The MES application 112 may provide a plurality of predefined application programming interface (API) calls to execute different production management tasks within a manufacturing organization...; see further [0062] In a third example use scenario, a packaging line setup process is promoted by the system 100. Bill initiates a new production order on a packaging line using one of the application interfaces 120 to the MES application 112. The MES application 112 invokes an API call to start the packaging line setup job. The MES application 112 changes the utilization state of the subject production line to line setup and invokes an API call to create two dynamic procedures and/or tasks----one task for each of Bill and a sixth worker "Len"...);
transmitting, by the computing device, the at least one task to a first task interaction provider via a [communication proxy] connection ([0038] Turning now to FIG. 1B, further details of distribution of business process management functionality is described. In an embodiment, the system 100 may comprise a centralized BPM application 118a that executes on a computer system in a central location 130 and which interacts with a centralized BPM data store 132; a first local BPM application 118b that executes on a computer system in a first remote location 134 and interacts with a first remote BPM data store 136; a second local BPM application 118c that executes on a computer system in a second remote location 138 and interacts with a second remote BPM data store 140...; see further [0040] In an embodiment, the BPM applications 118b, 118c, 118d that execute on computer systems in the remote locations 134, 138, 142 may be different from the BPM application 118a that executes on the computer system in the centralized location 130. The BPM applications 118b, 118c, 118d that execute at the remote locations 134, 138, 142 may, for example, perform operations to periodically push information from the remote BPM data stores 136, 140, 144 up to the centralized BPM data store 132 when communication links between the BPM applications 118b, 118c, 118d are established with the network 108; see further [0043] Turning now to FIG. 2, a method 200 is described. At block 202 a first input from an HMI 106 is received in a plant, in an enterprise, or in an organization...At block 204, in response to the first input, a first event is generated. For example, a first event is transmitted to the BPM application 118. In an embodiment, this may involve invoking a script of an object associated with the workflow and/or an object associated with a task in the workflow and/or an object associated with a device that participates in some way in the workflow...The first task is assigned to a first functional role... In an embodiment, the BPM application 118 may assign the first task; see further [0046] Turning now to FIG. 3, a method 230 is described. At block 232, a notification of a first task to be completed is received in a first interface associated with a first application) );
receiving, by the computing device, a response from the first task-interaction provider via the [communication proxy] connection ([0048] At block 236, a first input related to the first task is received from the first interface...At block 242, the workflow is completed. In some circumstances, completion of the workflow may involve sending events to one or more roles associated with the workflow as well as sending an event to the BPM application 118. In an embodiment, completion of a workflow and/or completion of a task may invoke automated scripts that perform automated activities. For example, upon completion of a task and/or a workflow, data associated with the task and/or workflow may be stored to a data store and/or to a historian application);
configuring the response from the first task-interaction provider in accordance with a second task-interaction provider and transmitting the configured response to the second task-interaction provider ([0054] In a first example use scenario, a positive quality assurance release process is promoted by the system 100. A first worker "Bill" determines that he has produced the target amount of product required for a particular production order. Bill accesses an interface to the MES application 112 and inputs an indication that the packaging order is complete. The MES application 112 invokes an application programming interface (API) call to complete the job at the packaging operation and executes customized logic that is hooked into the API call; [0055] When the positive quality assurance release workflow is invoked, the BPM application 118 sends a task to a second worker "John" to review and approve the data that has been collected for the subject production order. John accesses his task via an interface to the MES application 112. The interface John uses to access the MES application 112 may be different from the interface that Bill uses to access the MES application 112. Each worker can access and interact with the MES application 112 in the context that is appropriate and/or preferred by each worker. When John accesses his task, perhaps selecting the subject task from a list of tasks currently assigned to John, the MES application 112 retrieves and presents appropriate production data and/or records. The data and/or records maybe retrieved from the data store associated with the MES application 112 and/or from a third party quality management application. The production data and/or records may be referred to in some contexts herein as information items. The production data and/or records may be presented in a form that highlights areas of non-conformance, if any non-conformance exists; see further FIG. 1B, 134, 138, 142, noting they are external to 130).
While Agarwal discloses a connection for a task-integration, it may not explicitly disclose a communication proxy.
Analogous art Thacker discloses a communication proxy ([0273] In some implementations, access to an external task management data source can be established by deploying a remote connector or adapter to the server for the external task management data source. In some implementations, the remote connector can be a client server configured to communicate with an external task management data source via an API [i.e., a communication proxy]. In some implementations, the remote connector can be a token provided by the external task management data source's API. The token indicates an established authenticated connection between the database system and the external task management data source so that the external task management data source's API feels secure to transmit requested information. When an application provided by the database system requests retrieval of task information from the external task management data source, communication can be established to the external task data source service via the API through the remote connector. Upon establishing communication, the application can pull information from the external task management data source. In some implementations, a remote connector may be adapted to communicate with multiple servers of multiple external task management data sources. The remote connector can be configured to authenticate a user to the external task management data source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management and delivery system with connectors between systems of Agarwal the communication proxies / adapter to a server for external task management as taught by Thacker since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would produce a predictable result of allowing task systems to interact with third party and external systems.
In respect to claim 22, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing wherein the first task-interaction provider, the second task-interaction provider, or both are external to the computing device ([0055] When the positive quality assurance release workflow is invoked, the BPM application 118 sends a task to a second worker "John" to review and approve the data that has been collected for the subject production order. John accesses his task via an interface to the MES application 112. The interface John uses to access the MES application 112 may be different from the interface that Bill uses to access the MES application 112. Each worker can access and interact with the MES application 112 in the context that is appropriate and/or preferred by each worker. When John accesses his task, perhaps selecting the subject task from a list of tasks currently assigned to John, the MES application 112 retrieves and presents appropriate production data and/or records. The data and/or records maybe retrieved from the data store associated with the MES application 112 and/or from a third party quality management application. The production data and/or records may be referred to in some contexts herein as information items. The production data and/or records may be presented in a form that highlights areas of non-conformance, if any non-conformance exists; see further FIG. 1B, 134, 138, 142, noting they are external to 130).
In respect to claim 23, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing wherein the first task-interaction provider, the second task-interaction provider, or both are internal to the computing device (see at least [0050] At block 258, a second workflow is defined to comprise the second plurality of tasks. At block 260, a third workflow is defined to comprise the third plurality of tasks. At block 262, the second plurality of tasks is performed in the plant, for example in one of the remote locations 134, 138, 142. In an embodiment, the third workflow may be performed at the centralized location 130 and the first workflow may be conceived to be the end-to-end combination of the second workflow and the third workflow)..
In respect to claim 24, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing configuring, by the computing device, the response from the first task-interaction provider, wherein the at least one task is received from an originating source; and delivering, by the computing device, the configured response to the originating source (see at least [0055] ...John accesses his task via an interface to the MES application 112. The interface John uses to access the MES application 112 may be different from the interface that Bill uses to access the MES application 112. Each worker can access and interact with the MES application 112 in the context that is appropriate and/or preferred by each worker).
In respect to claim 25, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 24, Agarwal further disclosing wherein the task originating source comprises at least one of a workflow, an RPA, a workflow designer, or combinations thereof ([0029]... In an embodiment, the system 100 provides both a framework and/ or open platform for defining and building workflows as well as a platform for executing workflows; see further [0037] Design time contextualization is promoted by the system 100. In an embodiment, the application interfaces 120 provide or embed an interface for designing workflow and/or workflow events. The interface for designing workflow and/ or workflow events is exposed within the application interfaces 120, thereby empowering workers to design and interact with workflow within the application interface 120 with which they are most familiar and/or most comfortable).
In respect to claim 26, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing automatically generating a user interface for the first task-interaction provider, the second task-interaction provider, or both ([0044] At block 206, a second input is received associated with the first task. The second input may be a selection of a control input in a user interface presented by one of the application interfaces 120, for example a control input related to the BPM application 118 or other application 112, 114, 116…).
In respect to claim 27, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing identifying a set of task-interaction providers in communication with the computing device, wherein upon completion of the at least one task at the first task-interaction provider, a status of the at least one task is automatically updated as being complete at the second task-interaction provider and each of the set of task-interaction providers ([0057] If Dave approves, the BPM application 118 sends an email message embedding a link to the form to a fourth worker "Jay" informing him of the resolution; invokes anAPI call on the MES application 112 to change the status of the production order to released; sends a message to a third party warehouse management application that the production order is ready to be shipped; and terminates the workflow. [0058] If Dave rejects, the BPM application 118 sends an email message embedding a link to the form to Jay informing him of the release issue; invokes an API call on the MES application 112 to change the status of the production order to under quality assurance review; and sends a message back to John asking him to revise his resolution recommendation or provide further supporting information and/or arguments for his original recommendation).
In respect to claim 28, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing identifying a set of task-interaction providers in communication with the computing device, configuring the response from the first task-interaction provider in accordance with each of the set of task-interaction providers; and transmitting the respective configured response to each of the respective set of task-interaction providers ([0055] When the positive quality assurance release workflow is invoked, the BPM application 118 sends a task to a second worker "John" to review and approve the data that has been collected for the subject production order. John accesses his task via an interface to the MES application 112. The interface John uses to access the MES application 112 may be different from the interface that Bill uses to access the MES application 112. Each worker can access and interact with the MES application 112 in the context that is appropriate and/or preferred by each worker…).
In respect to claim 29, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing wherein the task is associated with a workflow ([0029]... In an embodiment, the system 100 provides both a framework and/ or open platform for defining and building workflows as well as a platform for executing workflows; see further [0037] Design time contextualization is promoted by the system 100. In an embodiment, the application interfaces 120 provide or embed an interface for designing workflow and/or workflow events. The interface for designing workflow and/ or workflow events is exposed within the application interfaces 120, thereby empowering workers to design and interact with workflow within the application interface 120 with which they are most familiar and/or most comfortable).
In respect to claim 30, the combined invention of Agarwal and Thacker disclose the method of claim 21, Agarwal further disclosing wherein the task is associated with a workflow, wherein the workflow is associated with multiple tasks, and wherein each of the multiple tasks can be performed by one or more entities ([0029]... In an embodiment, the system 100 provides both a framework and/ or open platform for defining and building workflows as well as a platform for executing workflows; see further [0037] Design time contextualization is promoted by the system 100. In an embodiment, the application interfaces 120 provide or embed an interface for designing workflow and/or workflow events. The interface for designing workflow and/ or workflow events is exposed within the application interfaces 120, thereby empowering workers to design and interact with workflow within the application interface 120 with which they are most familiar and/or most comfortable).
Claims 31 – 39 are directed to a non-transitory medium performing the same steps as found in claims 29 – 30, and are rejected using the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is allowed.
The closest prior art of record includes Agarwal and Thacker, cited above, Agarwal et al. (U.S. 2012/0095585), which discloses and is directed to a system and method for workflow integration; Teng et al. (U.S. 2002/0147813), which discloses and is directed to a proxy system; Borzycki et al. (U.S. 2015/0271296), which discloses and is directed to an enterprise application store for an orchestration framework for connected devices; Aigner et al. (U.S. 2004/0187140), which discloses and is directed to an application framework; Chandra et al. (U.S. 7,130,885), which discloses and is directed to methods and apparatus providing electronic messages that are linked and aggregated; Wagner et al. (U.S. 10,282,229), which discloses and is directed to asynchronous task management in an on-demand network code execution environment; and Scotney et al. (U.S. 11,416,874), which discloses and is directed to a compliance management system.
However, with respect to independent claim 40, none of the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality directed to identifying, by the computing device, a set of required user interface components for displaying the at least one task at the task-interaction provider; and configuring, by the computing device, the at least one task to automatically add a set of embeddable user interface components to the task-interaction provider in response to determining at least one required user interface component is not found at the task-interaction provider.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Nickolov; Peter et al. US 20140040343 A1 Globally Distributed Utility Computing Cloud
Schwerin-Wenzel, Sven et al. US 20040249658 A1 Services integration
Ramarathinam; Aravind et al. US 20130339950 A1 Intermediary Virtual Machine Task Management
Van Briggle; Chris et al. US 20190303779 A1 DIGITAL WORKER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Tsujikura, Nobuya et al. JP 10303492 A Semiconductor Laser Device
Weinert, Jr.; Scott Nielsen et al. US 20200004798 A1 Method And System For Automating Web Processes Utilizing An Abstractable Underlying Platform Layer
Mayo; Mark G. et al. US 20110179162 A1 Managing Workloads and Hardware Resources in a Cloud Resource
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625