Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 03 April 2026. Claim 19 has been amended to correct minor informality. No substantive claim amendment was been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 19 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to satisfy the claim objection. The claim objection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is restated below.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is restated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims require the system to be specifically programmed to automate a first workflow with a control item “having a link to a second workflow: and require “a first completion instructions” form the first user device and “second completion instructions” from the second user device, wherein the vast potential number of actionable items in each of the workflows is efficient and beyond the mental capability of a single person or a single person using pen and paper. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While a new workflow and collaboration management system may constitute an improvement to an abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice, it is still nonetheless an abstract idea. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). “[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The claimed “link” is broadly and generically claimed, such that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “link” could be construed as a trigger, dependency, instruction to the user assigned to the workflow (See Spec @ [0038]), or other conditional pre-defined rule related to the second workflow, not a control step that executes an automated function that amounts to a practical application of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claimed link is not construed as a patent eligible improvement to the abstract idea.
The specification at paragraph [008] states the Fig. 2 “depicts an example process form communicating workflow instructions.” MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2)(ii), states that a determination of whether a claim is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity is not based on the number of people involved in the activity. The claimed invention amounts to a series of rules or steps that a user would follow to for executing a workflow job service (See Spec at [0011; Fig. 5]. This is an abstract idea. The method steps not being able to be performed outside of a computing environment is not a test of eligibility. Certain activities between a person and computer may fall within the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Further, the claims do not need to recite a person or people to fall within this abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”’ Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.
Applicant further asserts that the automation of the actionable items, the control item, and the link to a second workflow are rooted in computer technology and require a specifically programmed automated system. Applicant states that the rejection of claims 1-20 is improper because the claims recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because, per the Specification at [para. 0033; Fig.2, 4-5, 8]. Lastly Applicant asserts that the rejection of claims 1-20 is improper because the claims, as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements merely apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and therefore do not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014) (The “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Unlike Enfish, these recitations are not directed to any specific improvement in the computing device or software. See Spec. at [0128] (“Processing hardware may comprise one or more processors, microprocessors, computer equipment, embedded systems, machines, and/or the like.”). The use of generic computing devices is not sufficient to render the claims something other than an abstract idea. Here, management of information and workflow does not represent a “technical field,” but is, instead, a basic business practice of managing any workflow assigned to a user or group of users working in collaboration. The computing devices and software in the Specification are described in a generic way such that no specific improvement is described. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”). The claimed “workflow” and “control item“ are interpreted as rules or instructions followed to analyze, select, and process records or user input in a workflow, which is the abstract idea. Even if the claimed invention improved operations/functionality, any alleged improvement is at best, an improvement to the abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still an unpatentable abstract idea. As a result, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and restated below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant asserts that the prior art of record fails to teach or otherwise disclose a “control item having a link to a second workflow,” and further does not describe or disclose “a first workflow for a first user and a second workflow for a second user.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per the Spec at [0038] “As used herein, a linked workflow is a workflow that is linked to another separate workflow” and [0040] “The link may point to a start of the second workflow.” As stated above, the claimed “link” is broadly and generically claimed such that it may be construed as a trigger, dependency, instruction to the user assigned to the workflow (See Spec @ [0038]), or other conditional pre-defined rule related to the second workflow when applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language in view of the Specification. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0023-0024, 0030-0032; Fig. 3-5], as cited in the rejection, explicitly discloses units of work assigned to and/or completed by individual users in a collaborative environment, in manner that is functionally equivalent to multiple users working together assigned to different parts of the same or multiple related workflows. As cited in the rejection at page 9, Culver et al. is combined with the disclosure of Beauchamp et al., and discloses “tag … is used to remind a user of a relationship between a first item and a second item that is somehow related to the first item but is otherwise separate from it (Culver et al. [para. 0125-0126].” Therefore, the referenced prior art discloses the claim invention and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is proper, maintained, and restated below.
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 of managing workflow by collecting and presenting workflow user input and executing rules upon the occurrence of an event, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a device and independent claim 17 recites a process for providing automated workflows. Claims 1 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
i) automatically communicating first workflow presentation instructions to a first user device, the first workflow presentation instructions configured to present a first workflow to a first user, the first workflow comprising a first sequence of actionable items and a control item, the control item having a link to a second workflow;
ii) electronically receiving first completion instructions from the first user device, the first completion instructions comprising first data;
iii) automatically communicating second workflow presentation instructions to a second user device, the second workflow presentation instructions configured to present the second workflow to a second user, the second workflow comprising a second sequence of actionable items; and
iv) electronically receiving second completion instructions from the second user device, the second completion instructions comprising second data.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, independent claims 1 and 17 recite at least one step or act, including automatically communicating first workflow presentation instructions to a first user device. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitation of claim 1 for communicating first workflow presentation instructions to a first user device, receiving first completion instructions from the first user device, communicating second workflow presentation instructions to a second user device, and receiving second completion instructions from the second user device, illustrate a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to tracking and managing the workflow of a human and falls within the organizing human activities grouping of abstract ideas. The claims additionally amount to steps that could be performed by a human mentally or through use of pen and paper, because a project manager or collaborative team could make workflow observation, judgements, and decisions based on policies and procedures, and the verification that linked tasks are completed in a hierarchical sequence. Therefore, the claims fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract concepts, and recite an abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and presenting workflow information. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Communicating instructions, presenting a task or workflow, receiving user input regarding completion instructions are data gathering and transmission steps that merely provide input for the recited data processing steps and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim only recites a processor and storage device for performing the recited steps. In particular, the claims only recite a processor and storage device for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0128] states: “Processing hardware may comprise one or more processors, microprocessors, computer equipment, embedded systems, machines, and/or the like. Processing hardware may comprise one or more single core or multiple core processors that executes parallel processes simultaneously.” See also Spec at [0089]. The Specification does not provide additional details about the computer system that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the mental process/ certain method of organizing human activity abstract idea by describing how the workflow data is received, processed, the type of actionable items and data being processed, and how the workflow data is linked to predetermined and programmed rules. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 17 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1 - 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp et al. (US 2023/0195299) in view Culver et al. (US 2012/0110087).
Regarding Claim 1, Beauchamp et al. discloses an automated system coupled to a computer network, the system comprising : a) at least one memory storing instructions; and b) at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations, the operations comprising: (… systems and methods to provide personalized graphical user interfaces within a collaboration environment. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0001]. … system 100 may include one or more of one or more servers 102, one or more client computing platforms 104, external resource(s) 126, and/or other components. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0002, 0019-0020; Fig. 1]. … Referring back to FIG. 1, in some implementations, server(s) 102, client computing platform(s) 104, and/or external resource(s) 126 may be operatively linked via one or more electronic communication links. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0079-0080]);
i) automatically communicating first workflow presentation instructions to a first user device, the first workflow presentation instructions configured to present a first workflow to a first user, the first workflow comprising a first sequence of actionable items and a control item, the control item having a link to a second workflow; (… units of work created by, assigned to, and/or completed by the users may refer generally to a linking of the units of work with the individual users in the collaboration environment. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0023-0024]. … queues may be presented to the users in a user interface of the collaboration environment to facilitate access to the units of work via work unit pages. Individual queues may represent the units of work assigned to individual users organized in an order based on the individual end dates and/or other dates (e.g., start dates) and/or other ordering. Individual queues may be presented in a user interface based on one or more of a list view, a calendar view, and/or other views. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0030-0032; Fig. 3-5]);
ii) electronically receiving first completion instructions from the first user device, the first completion instructions comprising first data; (values of the work completion parameter may indicate that a status a unit of work has changed from “incomplete” to “marked complete” and/or “complete”… a status of “marked complete” may be associated with a user providing input via the collaboration environment at the point in time the user completes the unit of work (which may be before or after an end date). Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]. … A collaboration may include at least one action taken with respect to a given record. The action may include one or more of adding comments, sending direct communications, co-authoring content, conducting meetings, establishing assignee/assignor relationships, marking complete, marking incomplete, reassigning, and/or other actions. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0050, 0060]);
While Beauchamp et al. discloses collaboration between users, Beauchamp et al fails to explicitly recite iii) automatically communicating second workflow presentation instructions to a second user device, the second workflow presentation instructions configured to present the second workflow to a second user, the second workflow comprising a second sequence of actionable items; and iv) electronically receiving second completion instructions from the second user device, the second completion instructions comprising second data. Culver et al. discloses this limitation. (… the tagging sub-module 650 can be used to assign a `tag` to one or more items in the projects and/or user profile databases 312 and 314. This tag typically is used to remind a user of a relationship between a first item and a second item that is somehow related to the first item but is otherwise separate from it. Culver et al. [para. 00125-0126]. .. assume that the system 10 is configured in such a way that the completion of a task by a first user in a project (e.g., a worker or junior employee) must be satisfactorily rated by a second user (e.g., a supervisor or senior employee) before the task may be considered complete and/or `signed-off`. The tagging sub-module 650 may be used by the second user to rate the work of the first user and determine whether the task is indeed complete and may be therefore considered signed-off. When the tagging sub-module 650 indicates that the task has been signed-off by the second user, the email management sub-module 620 may send a certain indication (e.g., an email, an update to an RSS feed or a `tweet`) to other members of the project team that a particular task has been completed and that any dependent tasks may now commence. Culver et al. [para. 0161, 0475-0478 (assignment of team roles), 0835-0838]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of automated workflow management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workflow steps of Beauchamp et al. to include automatically communicating second workflow presentation instructions to a second user device, the second workflow presentation instructions configured to present the second workflow to a second user, the second workflow comprising a second sequence of actionable items; and iv) electronically receiving second completion instructions from the second user device, the second completion instructions comprising second data as disclosed by Culver et al. to enable communication and collaboration between people working on industrial, commercial or residential construction projects (Culver et al. [para. 0002]), in a manner that would have yielded predictable results at the relevant time.
Regarding Claim 2, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the first workflow is configured for users external to an organization. (External resource(s) 126 may include sources of information outside of system 100, external entities participating with system 100, and/or other resources. In some implementations, some or all of the functionality attributed herein to external resource(s) 126 may be provided by resources included in system 100. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0082]).
Regarding Claim 3, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the second workflow is configured for users internal to the organization. (t. The environment state information may include one or more of user records, work unit records, project records, objective records, and/or other records. The user records may include user information comprising values of user parameters associated with the users of the collaboration environment. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0019-0022, 0082]. … In some implementations, project records may include permissions information for the individual projects. The permissions may specify access restrictions for the individual project. The access restrictions may be specified on a user-basis, user role-bases (e.g., based on one or more of organization role, role in units of work, and/or project-level role), for groups of users, and/or specified in other ways. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0033-0037]).
Regarding Claim 4, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the link points to a start of the second workflow. ( the one or more of the units of work assigned to the individual user presented in a personalized graphical user interface may include units of work assigned to the individual user and linked to one or more frequent collaborators…. the values of the work unit parameters of one or more units of work presented in a personalized graphical user interface in may be organized based on the units of work being one or more of past a due date, presently due, and/or nearing the due date. In some implementations, the values may be presented as an arrangement of interface elements. The arrangement may be organized by one or more of pressing deadlines, frequency of activity, specific collaborators, and/or other considerations of organization. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0054-0055]).
Regarding Claim 5, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the second workflow is linked to the control item. (… users may directly interact with the collaboration environment which causes change to one or more values. By way of non-limiting illustration, the collaboration environment may be configured with one or more automation rules that cause one or more values to change in response to trigger events. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0067-0073]).
Regarding Claim 6, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the second sequence of actionable items are nonactionable to the second user device until after the first completion instructions are received from the first user device. (… a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]).
Regarding Claim 7, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein actionable items past the control item in the first workflow are nonactionable to the first user device until after the second completion instructions are received from the second user device. (… a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, the operations further comprising: a) automatically generating a modified version of the first workflow, the modified version comprising actionable items past the control item being actionable; and b) automatically communicating modified workflow presentation instructions to the first user device, the modified workflow presentation instructions configured to present the modified version of the first workflow to the first user. (… the interface elements may be dynamically updated as the values change. Providing these updated values of parameters may maintain the information in the dynamic homepage to be in its most current state. Beauchamp p et al. [para. 0005]. … The update component 114 may be configured to monitor use of the collaboration environment by the users to determine change in the values of parameters of the collaboration environment. In some implementations, update component 114 may be configured to dynamically update the personalized graphical user interfaces based on the change in the values. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0067-0073]).
Regarding Claim 9, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the first data comprises at least one of: a) data provided by the first user; or b) a notification of completion of an actionable item preceding the control item, the actionable item in the first sequence of actionable items. (… a status of “marked complete” may be associated with a user providing input via the collaboration environment at the point in time the user completes the unit of work (which may be before or after an end date). Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]. … A collaboration may include at least one action taken with respect to a given record. The action may include one or more of adding comments, sending direct communications, co-authoring content, conducting meetings, establishing assignee/assignor relationships, marking complete, marking incomplete, reassigning, and/or other actions. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0050, 0060] … The update component 114 may be configured to monitor use of the collaboration environment by the users to determine change in the values of parameters of the collaboration environment. In some implementations, update component 114 may be configured to dynamically update the personalized graphical user interfaces based on the change in the values. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0067-0073).
Regarding Claim 10, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the second data comprises one or more of: a) data provided by the second user; b) a notification of completion of an actionable item in the second sequence of actionable items; or c) a notification that the second workflow has completed. (… a status of “marked complete” may be associated with a user providing input via the collaboration environment at the point in time the user completes the unit of work (which may be before or after an end date). Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]. … A collaboration may include at least one action taken with respect to a given record. The action may include one or more of adding comments, sending direct communications, co-authoring content, conducting meetings, establishing assignee/assignor relationships, marking complete, marking incomplete, reassigning, and/or other actions. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0050, 0060] … The update component 114 may be configured to monitor use of the collaboration environment by the users to determine change in the values of parameters of the collaboration environment. In some implementations, update component 114 may be configured to dynamically update the personalized graphical user interfaces based on the change in the values. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0067-0073).
Regarding Claim 11, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein the actionable items comprise one or more of the following: a) a form; b) a file request; c) an approval; d) an acknowledgement; e) a signature; f) a calendar item; g) a task; or h) an integration. (A given unit of work may have one or more assignees and/or collaborators working on the given work unit. Units of work may include one or more to-do items, action items, objectives, and/or other units of work one or more users should accomplish and/or plan on accomplishing. Units of work may be created by a given user for the given user and/or created by a given user and assigned to one or more other users. Individual units of work may include one or more of an individual task, an individual sub-task, and/or other units of work assigned to and/or associated with one or more users. Individual units of work may include one or more digital content items. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0022]).
Regarding Claim 12, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein one or more of the actionable items includes access to an API associated with a third party service. Culver et al. discloses this limitation. (… a company who uses the collaboration system 10 may use their own software application to access and interact with this system programmatically, rather than through the UI 1430 and its elements. To provide such programmatic access to the system 10 to other external computer systems, an Application Programming Interface (or API) may be provided to external organizations. The API includes certain programmatic commands that may be passed from an external computing system to the collaboration system 10 via the network 100 that allow the system 10 to respond as if a human user was performing certain actions via the UI 1430. Culver et al. [para. 0909-0912]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of collaboration systems and workflow management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beauchamp et al. to include one or more of the actionable items includes access to an API associated with a third party service as disclosed by Culver et al. to enable communication and collaboration between people working on industrial, commercial or residential construction projects (Culver et al. [para. 0002]), in a manner that would have yielded predictable results at the relevant time.
Regarding Claim 13, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein one or more of the actionable items is assignable to one or more users. (A given unit of work may have one or more assignees and/or collaborators working on the given work unit. Units of work may include one or more to-do items, action items, objectives, and/or other units of work one or more users should accomplish and/or plan on accomplishing. Units of work may be created by a given user for the given user and/or created by a given user and assigned to one or more other users. Individual units of work may include one or more of an individual task, an individual sub-task, and/or other units of work assigned to and/or associated with one or more users. Individual units of work may include one or more digital content items. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0022]).
Regarding Claim 14, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, wherein each of the users are associated with a workflow role. (… project records may include permissions information for the individual projects. The permissions may specify access restrictions for the individual project. The access restrictions may be specified on a user-basis, user role-bases (e.g., based on one or more of organization role, role in units of work, and/or project-level role), for groups of users, and/or specified in other ways. … A role may represent expected contribution of the users in completing and/or supporting the units of work and/or the projects. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0033-0037]).
Regarding Claim 15, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, the operations further comprising: a) automatically communicating first feed instructions to the first user device, the first feed instructions configured to present a first collaboration feed to the first user; b) electronically receiving first collaboration instructions from the first user device, the first collaboration instructions comprising a request to add a collaboration item to the first collaboration feed; c) automatically generating a modified first collaboration feed based on the first collaboration instructions; and d) automatically communicating modified first feed instructions to the first user device, the modified first feed instructions configured to present the modified first collaboration feed to the first user. (… the interface elements may present one or more values of one or more parameters that define the collaboration environment. In some implementations, the interface elements may be dynamically updated as the values change. Providing these updated values of parameters may maintain the information in the dynamic homepage to be in its most current state. In some implementations, users may customize the content displayed in the personalized graphical user interface. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0005-0006, 0032, 0064]).
Regarding Claim 16, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the system, the operations further comprising: a) automatically communicating second feed instructions to the second user device, the second feed instructions configured to present a second collaboration feed to the second user, the second collaboration feed distinct from the first collaboration feed; b) electronically receiving second collaboration instructions from the second user device, the second collaboration instructions comprising a request to add a collaboration item to the second collaboration feed; c) automatically generating a modified second collaboration feed based on the second collaboration instructions; and d) automatically communicating modified second feed instructions to the second user device, the modified second feed instructions configured to present the modified second collaboration feed to the second user. (… the interface elements may present one or more values of one or more parameters that define the collaboration environment. In some implementations, the interface elements may be dynamically updated as the values change. Providing these updated values of parameters may maintain the information in the dynamic homepage to be in its most current state. In some implementations, users may customize the content displayed in the personalized graphical user interface. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0005-0006, 0032]. … the personalized graphical user interfaces of the collaboration environment may be separate and distinct from individual views of the collaboration environment that display queues of the units of work assigned to the individual users. In some implementations, the personalized graphical user interfaces of the collaboration environment may be separate and distinct from individual pages that provide access to individual records. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0064-0065]).
Regarding Claim 17, Beauchamp et al. discloses a method for automating workflow, the method comprising: a) automatically communicating first workflow presentation instructions to a first user device, the first workflow presentation instructions configured to present a first workflow to a first user, the first workflow comprising a first sequence of actionable items and a control item, the control item having a link to a second workflow; (… systems and methods to provide personalized graphical user interfaces within a collaboration environment. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0001]. .. … system 100 may include one or more of one or more servers 102, one or more client computing platforms 104, external resource(s) 126, and/or other components. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0002, 0019-0020; Fig. 1]. … Referring back to FIG. 1, in some implementations, server(s) 102, client computing platform(s) 104, and/or external resource(s) 126 may be operatively linked via one or more electronic communication links. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0079-0080] … units of work created by, assigned to, and/or completed by the users may refer generally to a linking of the units of work with the individual users in the collaboration environment. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0023-0024]. … queues may be presented to the users in a user interface of the collaboration environment to facilitate access to the units of work via work unit pages. Individual queues may represent the units of work assigned to individual users organized in an order based on the individual end dates and/or other dates (e.g., start dates) and/or other ordering. Individual queues may be presented in a user interface based on one or more of a list view, a calendar view, and/or other views. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0030-0032; Fig. 3-5]);
b) electronically receiving first completion instructions from the first user device, the first completion instructions comprising first data; (… values of the work completion parameter may indicate that a status a unit of work has changed from “incomplete” to “marked complete” and/or “complete”. … a status of “marked complete” may be associated with a user providing input via the collaboration environment at the point in time the user completes the unit of work (which may be before or after an end date). Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]. … A collaboration may include at least one action taken with respect to a given record. The action may include one or more of adding comments, sending direct communications, co-authoring content, conducting meetings, establishing assignee/assignor relationships, marking complete, marking incomplete, reassigning, and/or other actions. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0050, 0060]);
While Beauchamp et al. discloses collaboration between users, Beauchamp et al fails to explicitly recite c) automatically communicating second workflow presentation instructions to a second user device, the second workflow presentation instructions configured to present the second workflow to a second user, the second workflow comprising a second sequence of actionable items; and d) electronically receiving second completion instructions from the second user device, the second completion instructions comprising second data. Culver et al. discloses this limitation. (… the tagging sub-module 650 can be used to assign a `tag` to one or more items in the projects and/or user profile databases 312 and 314. This tag typically is used to remind a user of a relationship between a first item and a second item that is somehow related to the first item but is otherwise separate from it. Culver et al. [para. 00125-0126]. .. assume that the system 10 is configured in such a way that the completion of a task by a first user in a project (e.g., a worker or junior employee) must be satisfactorily rated by a second user (e.g., a supervisor or senior employee) before the task may be considered complete and/or `signed-off`. The tagging sub-module 650 may be used by the second user to rate the work of the first user and determine whether the task is indeed complete and may be therefore considered signed-off. When the tagging sub-module 650 indicates that the task has been signed-off by the second user, the email management sub-module 620 may send a certain indication (e.g., an email, an update to an RSS feed or a `tweet`) to other members of the project team that a particular task has been completed and that any dependent tasks may now commence. Culver et al. [para. 0161, 0475-0478 (assignment of team roles), 0835-0838]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of automated workflow management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workflow steps of Beauchamp et al. to include automatically communicating second workflow presentation instructions to a second user device, the second workflow presentation instructions configured to present the second workflow to a second user, the second workflow comprising a second sequence of actionable items; and d) electronically receiving second completion instructions from the second user device, the second completion instructions comprising second data as disclosed by Culver et al. to enable communication and collaboration between people working on industrial, commercial or residential construction projects (Culver et al. [para. 0002]), in a manner that would have yielded predictable results at the relevant time.
Regarding Claim 18, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the method, wherein the second sequence of actionable items are nonactionable to the second user device until after the first completion instructions are received from the first user device. (… a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]).
Regarding Amended Claim 19, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the method, wherein the actionable items past the control item in the first workflow are nonactionable to the first user device until after the second completion instructions are received from the second user device. (… a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0024-0029]).
Regarding Claim 20, Beauchamp et al. and Culver et al. combined disclose the method, further comprising: a) automatically generating a modified version of the first workflow, the modified version comprising the actionable items past the control item being actionable; and b) automatically communicating modified workflow presentation instructions to the first user device, the modified workflow presentation instructions configured to present the modified version of the first workflow to the first user. (… the interface elements may be dynamically updated as the values change. Providing these updated values of parameters may maintain the information in the dynamic homepage to be in its most current state. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0005]. … The update component 114 may be configured to monitor use of the collaboration environment by the users to determine change in the values of parameters of the collaboration environment. In some implementations, update component 114 may be configured to dynamically update the personalized graphical user interfaces based on the change in the values. Beauchamp et al. [para. 0067-0073]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abeykoon et al. (US 2022/0180291) - a method of workflow assignment, including: identifying an actionable event; determining a plurality of tasks for the actionable event; determining, for each of the plurality of tasks, one or more task parameters related to the task; and generating, for the actionable event, a workflow for each of one or more individuals to perform at least one of the plurality of tasks based on the one or more task parameters. There is also provided a corresponding system for workflow assignment.
Grossman et al. (US 2013/0311927) - receiving a request for steps to complete a task associated with a software application. In response to receiving the request for steps, the system obtains at least a first workflow and a second workflow, each workflow including one or more steps that the user device can execute to complete the task. The system receives a request to format the first workflow and the second workflow into one or more view formats. The system generates a summary of the first workflow and a summary of the second workflow. Each summary includes one or more salient attributes of the each workflow.
Henn et al. (US 2005/0015293) - collaboration enhanced workflow system includes an interface unit at least to provide an interface to a workflow system for performing a selected workflow and an interface to a collaboration system within which the actors of the current instance of the selected workflow can collaborate.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights