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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 10/30/25.
Claims 1-20 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 21, 28, 35 have been amended.
Therefore, Claims 21-40 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/30/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US12,061,619 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/25 has been considered by the examiner.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 21-27 are directed to a system, claims 28-34 are directed to a method and claims 35-40 are directed to a non-transitory medium. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 21, 28 and 35 recite methods for building new pages or customizing existing pages including customizable template having at least a plurality of functional components, creating a page of information identifying the customizable templates;
obtaining a selection of the customizable template having at least the functional components;
obtaining user input requesting configuration of one or more of the functional components of the selected customizable template; configuring, for a business use, the one or more functional components in accordance with the user input; providing a tabs component for configuring tabbed content, and providing an activity feed component for configuring feed-based communication with requesters; displaying, a preview of the selected customizable template having the configured one or more functional components; saving or updating the selected customizable template
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as a database system; one or more processors, a user interface, a user device , database (Claims 21, 28 and 25), non-transitory medium (Claim 35)), the claims are directed to customizing existing pages using templates. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing customized display. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – a database system; one or more processors, a user interface, a user device, database (Claims 21, 28 and 25), non-transitory medium (Claim 35). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using a user interface to receive and display data associated with the abstract idea, is merely an example of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). User interfaces are recited so generally that they do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The limitations reciting “displaying.. a preview…” is merely a post-solution step of transmitting data output—a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; customize existing pages using templates. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the a database system; one or more processors, a user interface, a user device , database (Claims 21, 28 and 25), non-transitory medium (Claim 35), these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0064] details “processor system 12A may be any combination of one or more processors. Memory system 12B may be any combination of one or more memory devices, short term, and/or long term memory. [0053] any of user systems 12 can be a handheld and/or portable computing device such as a mobile phone, a smartphone, a laptop computer, or a tablet. Other examples of a user system include computing devices such as a work station and/or a network of computing devices. [0049] a user may navigate to the service console via a hyperlink such as “view” from actions field 416 of FIG. 4 in user interface 400.” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “saving or updating step” amount to storing data in memory and is well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 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)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as Independent claims.
Claims 22-23, 29-30, 36-37 recite the customizable template having at least the configured one or more functional components is configurable to create the page for one or more of: a portal, a workspace, or a custom application; wherein one or more of the customizable templates is a page template including one or more of: components, data resources, or a layout. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea of user using customizable template by defining functional components of template. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 24-27, 31-34, 38-40 recites displaying a workspace including the customizable template having at least the configured one or more functional components, the workspace being usable to perform one or more of: responding to one or more task types, viewing a context of an issue, or obtaining one or more recommendations; wherein the workspace is configurable to have multiple issues open at the same time in a tabbed format; wherein the configured one or more functional components includes a tabs component for adding tabbed content to pages; wherein the configured one or more functional components includes an activity stream component. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavalcante (US 2019/0050206 A1) in view of Taylor et al. (US 2015/0007168 A1).
Regarding Claims 21, 28 and 35. (Amended) Cavalcante discloses the system for providing a user interface builder for building new pages or customizing existing pages ([0047] Fig 10 a graphic user interface for creating new, or modifying existing, Interaction Workflows using Interaction Workflow Designer, [0099] store the mappings and assignments of workflows, such as by agent or customer profile, the logic for assigning workflows to particular agents, and when and how particular workflows are initiated based on incoming calls and data.),
Cavalcante discloses the system comprising: a database system ([0005] CRM database to track, record, store data) comprising:
Cavalcante discloses one or more processors ([0032] using a processor, a computer display and a memory storing a plurality of activities.), and
Cavalcante discloses a database storing a plurality of customizable templates including a customizable template having at least a plurality of functional components ([0052] FIG. 15 shows an interaction template of the user interface, where a user can define sample call data or interaction values to be sent, [0099] The data store is a memory to store the interaction workflows that are programmed using the Designer. The data store also serves to store the mappings and assignments of workflows, such as by agent or customer profile, the logic for assigning workflows to particular agents, and when and how particular workflows are initiated based on incoming calls and data), the database system configurable to cause:
Cavalcante discloses displaying, in a user interface for creating a page, on a display of a user device, information identifying the customizable templates ([0104] FIG. 4, when a user initially launches the interaction workflow visual programming system software, a new workspace tab will open and display the system homepage 200. The homepage 200 is split into two sections. The top section is the programming ribbon bar 205. The programming ribbon bar 205 provides the user the ability to create, edit, delete, review, and deploy visually programmed interaction workflows. [0107] To create a new Interaction Workflow, a user can click the “New” button. The system homepage 200 will display a new Interaction Workflow called “New workflow” in the Interaction Workflows list 215. In the Interaction Details window, the user can provide a name and description for the new Interaction Workflow. To open an Interaction workflow in the Interaction Workflow Designer, the user will double-click the desired Interaction Workflow. [0117] Clicking the “Execute” button will open the Interaction Template, shown in FIG. 15, where a user can define sample Call Data or Interaction values to be sent with the execution request as test input data for simulation. Using this tool, a user is able to test all aspects of an Interaction Workflow;
Cavalcante discloses obtaining, via the user interface, a selection of the customizable template having at least the functional components ([0112] FIG. 10, the Interaction Workflow Designer provides a graphic user interface for creating new, or modifying existing Interaction Workflows. To launch the Interaction Workflow Designer, the user must double-click the desired Interaction Workflow from the Interaction Workflow list of the system homepage. The Interaction Workflow Designer is composed of two main windows; the Activities List 220 on the left side of the Designer, and the Design Canvas 210, on the right side of the Designer. To create specific Interaction Workflow logic a user drags the name of the Activity from the Activities List 220 (functional component) onto the Design Canvas 210, where it becomes a symbolic visual representation of an Activity 225);
Cavalcante discloses obtaining, via the user interface, user input requesting configuration of one or more of the functional components of the selected customizable template ([0112] To create specific Interaction Workflow logic a user drags the name of the Activity from the Activities List 220 (functional component) onto the Design Canvas 210, where it becomes a symbolic visual representation of an Activity 225), [0111] First, the user must locate the desired profile then click on the drop-down arrow in the “Workflow” column. Then the user must select the desired Interaction Workflow from the list. When complete, the user clicks the “Save” button., [0089]) Each activity is a software object that carries out a particular task, such as gathering information, handling information, handling interrupts, executing decisional logic, presenting an appropriate workspace on a live-agent's computer display screen based on gathered information, or presenting a screen pop to a live-agent's screen. These activities are then displayed visually in the Designer environment in order to allow a non-CTI programmer to “drag-and-drop” any needed activity into a visual logic flow of which screen pops are presented in response to any given input.);
Cavalcante discloses configuring, for a business use, the one or more functional components in accordance with the user input ([0107] The selected Workflow will automatically open in a new Interaction Workflow Designer tab, as shown in FIG. 5, in the programming canvas 210. The new workflow can then be renamed, such as, for example, “Sales Workflow”, and a description of this workflow can be entered., [0112] To create specific Interaction Workflow logic a user drags the name of the Activity from the Activities List 220 onto the Design Canvas 210, where it becomes a symbolic visual representation of an Activity 225. The user then can configure the Activity 225 for the desired results.); and
Cavalcante discloses including: providing a tabs component for configuring tabbed content (Fig 14 shows tab components such as workflow, preview, help, [0032] The software provides for a user to select a plurality of visual symbols of one or more of the activities and then dragging and dropping the selected visual symbols of one or more activities within the visual programming environment, thereby creating a visual representation of an executable interaction workflow for use by a live-agent in a contact center., [0042] FIG. 5 shows an enlarged interaction workflow detail tab in the programming canvas of the system homepage of a user interface for the visual programming environment, [0104] FIG. 4, when a user initially launches the interaction workflow visual programming system software, a new workspace tab will open and display the system homepage 200. The homepage 200 is split into two sections. The top section is the programming ribbon bar 205. The programming ribbon bar 205 provides the user the ability to create, edit, delete, review, and deploy visually programmed interaction workflows., [0107] To open an Interaction workflow in the Interaction Workflow Designer, the user will double-click the desired Interaction Workflow. The selected Workflow will automatically open in a new Interaction Workflow Designer tab, as shown in FIG. 5, [0154] The RunReport Activity opens a pre-defined system report in a new tab in the system Console), and providing an activity feed component for configuring feed-based communication with requesters ([0115] FIG. 13, a user can right-click the title bar of any Activity to see a context menu of available actions for working with Activities. Illustrated here is an Activity for “Contact Look-up Based on ANI (Caller ID).” (activity feed). Common actions include Cut, Copy, Paste and Delete for moving and re-using Activities within an Interaction Workflow. The user also has the option of copying or saving the Activity (or the entire Interaction Workflow) as an image so that images of the Activity or Interaction Workflow can be used in creating external documents, Fig 41-42 add interaction type case such as voice, email, chat) ;
Cavalcante discloses saving or updating the selected customized template having the configured one or more functional components in a database ([0109] FIG. 7, to export an Interaction Workflow, the user first selects the Interaction Workflow to be exported, then clicks the “Export” button. The user selects the desired location for exporting the Interaction Workflow, then enters the desired name for the exported file and clicks “Save.”, [0111] to deploy an Interaction Workflow as an executable file that can be used to create an instance of the Interaction Workflow on a display of a contact center agent, the user clicks the “Mapping” button. First, the user must locate the desired profile then click on the drop-down arrow in the “Workflow” column. Then the user must select the desired Interaction Workflow from the list. When complete, the user clicks the “Save” button., [0112] FIG. 10, the Interaction Workflow Designer provides a graphic user interface for creating new, or modifying existing Interaction Workflows. To launch the Interaction Workflow Designer, the user must double-click the desired Interaction Workflow from the Interaction Workflow list of the system homepage. The Interaction Workflow Designer is composed of two main windows; the Activities List 220 on the left side of the Designer, and the Design Canvas 210, on the right side of the Designer. ).
Cavalcante discloses displaying, in the user interface, a preview tab (Fig 14 preview tab, [0115] FIG. 13, a user can right-click the title bar of any Activity to see a context menu of available actions for working with Activities. Illustrated here is an Activity for “Contact Look-up Based on ANI (Caller ID).” Common actions include Cut, Copy, Paste and Delete for moving and re-using Activities within an Interaction Workflow. [0104] FIG. 4, when a user initially launches the interaction workflow visual programming system software, a new workspace tab will open and display the system homepage 200. The homepage 200 is split into two sections. The top section is the programming ribbon bar 205. The programming ribbon bar 205 provides the user the ability to create, edit, delete, review (preview), and deploy visually programmed interaction workflows, [0116] The visual programming environment of the present invention provides a test facility, i.e., a built-in simulator environment, that allows a user to see how a workflow will function in their contact center system without having to actually activate the workflow within the operational contact center system, thus saving time and resources). However, Cavalcante does not specifically teach displaying, in the user interface, a preview of the selected customizable template having the configured one or more functional components
Taylor teaches displaying, in the user interface, a preview of the selected customizable template having the configured one or more functional components ([0014] Fig 11 shows a portal preview within the studio tool, [0037] The user interface editing studio (used by the administrator) may show the groups that can see which fields and it may also be able to present a preview of the UI as it will look to a particular user segment. [0056] A studio tool (shown in FIG. 10) allows a user to view and modify the user interface (UI) for the portal application and then program the portal to get an updated UI from the primary installation over the network. FIG. 11 shows a portion created using the studio tool. The portal may request the updates (194) from the primary installation and then receive the updates from the primary installation (196). In more detail, a user may change the layout (add fields, remove fields, rearrange, etc.) and then hit the update button (to synchronize the portal with the primary installation. In the UI, the user authenticates for the portal, and the portal is updated. In this manner, the portal will pull updates to UI layout, look and feel, and any code changes that will affect the site from the primary installation. The portal may perform the update when instructed to by the user or the portal, once set to update, is able to automatically update its UI layout, look and feel or code whenever the UI layout, look and feel or code of the primary installation is changed.). saving or updating the selected customized template having the configured one or more functional components in a database ([0056] In the UI, the user authenticates for the portal, and the portal is updated. In this manner, the portal will pull updates to UI layout, look and feel, and any code changes that will affect the site from the primary installation. The portal may perform the update when instructed to by the user or the portal, once set to update, is able to automatically update its UI layout, look and feel or code whenever the UI layout, look and feel or code of the primary installation is changed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included displaying, in the user interface, a preview of the selected customizable template having the configured one or more functional components, as disclosed by Taylor in the system disclosed by Cavalcante, for the motivation of providing a user interface editing studio (used by the administrator) may show the groups that can see which fields and it may also be able to present a preview of the UI as it will look to a particular user segment. ([0037] Taylor).
Claim 28. (New) Cavalcante discloses computer-implemented method associated with a database storing a plurality of customizable templates including a customizable template having at least a plurality of functional components ([0052] FIG. 15 shows an interaction template of the user interface, where a user can define sample call data or interaction values to be sent with the execution request of an interaction workflow for the visual programming environment ), the method comprising:
Claim 35. (New) Cavalcante discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable program code to be executed by at least one processor (Claim 1 using a processor, a computer display and a memory storing a plurality of activities)
Regarding Claims 22, 29, 36, Cavalcante as modified by Taylor teaches the system of claim 21, method of claim 28, medium of claim 35
Cavalcante discloses wherein the customizable template having at least the configured one or more functional components is configurable to create the page for one or more of: a portal, a workspace, or a custom application. ([0153] FIG. 28, the Interaction Workflow has been configured to determine if the calling party is a high-value (e.g., “Diamond”) customer. If so, the system creates a new Incident and raises a named event of “Diamond.” (workspace) If not, the system creates a new Incident and raises a named event of “General.”, [0107] The system homepage 200 will display a new Interaction Workflow called “New workflow” in the Interaction Workflows list 215. In the Interaction Details window, the user can provide a name and description for the new Interaction Workflow. To open an Interaction workflow in the Interaction Workflow Designer, the user will double-click the desired Interaction Workflow. The selected Workflow will automatically open in a new Interaction Workflow Designer tab, as shown in FIG. 5, in the programming canvas 210. The new workflow can then be renamed, such as, for example, “Sales Workflow”, (custom application) and a description of this workflow can be entered.
Regarding Claims 23, 30, 37. Cavalcante as modified by Taylor teaches the system of claim 21, method of claim 28, medium of claim 35
Cavalcante discloses wherein one or more of the customizable templates is a page template including one or more of: components, data resources, or a layout. ([0107]The system homepage 200 will display a new Interaction Workflow called “New workflow” in the Interaction Workflows list 215. In the Interaction Details window, the user can provide a name and description for the new Interaction Workflow. To open an Interaction workflow in the Interaction Workflow Designer, the user will double-click the desired Interaction Workflow. The selected Workflow will automatically open in a new Interaction Workflow Designer tab, as shown in FIG. 5, in the programming canvas 210. The new workflow can then be renamed, such as, for example, “Sales Workflow”, (component) and a description of this workflow can be entered., Fig 14 customized workflow based on data resources, components such as workspaces)
Regarding Claims 24, 31 and 38. Cavalcante as modified by Taylor teaches the system of claim 21, method of claim 28, medium of claim 35, the database system further configurable to cause:
Cavalcante discloses displaying a workspace including the customizable template having at least the configured one or more functional components, the workspace being usable to perform one or more of: responding to one or more task types, viewing a context of an issue, or obtaining one or more recommendations. ([0153] FIG. 28, the Interaction Workflow has been configured to determine if the calling party is a high-value (e.g., “Diamond”) customer. (task type) If so, the system creates a new Incident and raises a named event of “Diamond.” If not, the system creates a new Incident and raises a named event of “General.” In this example, the interaction workflow might open a unique workspace for the “Diamond” customer as opposed to a general workspace for the “General” customer., [0107] The system homepage 200 will display a new Interaction Workflow called “New workflow” in the Interaction Workflows list 215. In the Interaction Details window, the user can provide a name and description for the new Interaction Workflow. To open an Interaction workflow in the Interaction Workflow Designer, the user will double-click the desired Interaction Workflow. The selected Workflow will automatically open in a new Interaction Workflow Designer tab, as shown in FIG. 5, in the programming canvas 210. The new workflow can then be renamed, such as, for example, “Sales Workflow”, (task type/issue) and a description of this workflow can be entered.
Regarding Claims 25, 32 and 39. Cavalcante as modified by Taylor teaches the system of claim 24, method of claim 31, medium of claim 38
Cavalcante discloses wherein the workspace is configurable to have multiple issues open at the same time in a tabbed format. (Fig 14 shows multiple tabs workflow, preview, help on workspace, [0154] The RunReport Activity opens a pre-defined system report in a new tab in the system Console and is illustrated in FIGS. 29-31. For example, if multiple Contacts are found for a specific caller based on Caller ID, the system can run a Contact report that displays all matches found.)
Regarding Claims 26, 33 and 40, Cavalcante as modified by Taylor teaches the system of claim 21, method of claim 28, medium of claim 35
Cavalcante discloses wherein the configured one or more functional components includes a tabs component for adding tabbed content to pages. ([0104] FIG. 4, when a user initially launches the interaction workflow visual programming system software, a new workspace tab will open and display the system homepage 200. The homepage 200 is split into two sections [0154] The RunReport Activity opens a pre-defined system report in a new tab in the system Console and is illustrated in FIGS. 29-31. For example, if multiple Contacts are found for a specific caller based on Caller ID, the system can run a Contact report that displays all matches found., [0170] The RunHttpReport Activity is illustrated in FIG. 32, and functions exactly like the standard RunReport Activity with one exception. When executed, the RunHttpReport Activity will open a pre-defined system report in a new tab in the system Console. If that tab is left open by the agent, and another RunHttpReport Activity is executed, the RunHttpReport Activity will refresh the existing report with any new filter criteria passed to the report. )
Regarding Claims 27, 34. Cavalcante as modified by Taylor teaches discloses the system of claim 21 and method of claim 28,
Cavalcante discloses wherein the configured one or more functional components includes an activity stream component. ([0112] The Interaction Workflow Designer is composed of two main windows; the Activities List 220 on the left side of the Designer, and the Design Canvas 210, on the right side of the Designer. To create specific Interaction Workflow logic a user drags the name of the Activity from the Activities List 220 onto the Design Canvas 210, where it becomes a symbolic visual representation of an Activity 225. The user then can configure the Activity 225 for the desired results.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant states that amended claims provide improvements in the functioning of a database system and integrates into a practical application. Examiner has considered all arguments and respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing customized display. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – a database system; one or more processors, a user interface, a user device, database (Claims 21, 28 and 25), non-transitory medium (Claim 35). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to improvement to database system, the specification/claims provides no further detail as to how the claim set achieves such an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Examiner notes neither specification nor claims recite how the improvement to database system is achieved. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the instant claims are only to generic computing components that implement the abstract idea on a computing environment. As such, it can be interpreted that the instant claims only make the abstract idea more efficient, and there are not actual changes/improvements to any computing components.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 102 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New limitations have been considered in claim rejection above
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Busch (US 2015/0281444A1) discloses the business processes and data modeled by and represented as business objects (BOs) may include the relationships associating the interactions and the documents, records, and other data thereto. The BOs may be maintained and managed by a database system. ([0030])
Vyments (US 9,912,812) discloses composing a routing strategy for a contact center via a graphical user interface. The graphical user interface provides a plurality of selectable blocks and a workspace for assembling selected ones of the plurality of blocks. Each of the plurality of blocks is associated with logic for managing an interaction with the contact center.
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 SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626