DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s representative had canceled the previously pending claims 1-20, and now presents new claims 21-40. The applicant’s representative now argues that newly submitted claims 21-40 recite statutory subject matter.
In response, newly submitted claims 21-40 fail to recite statutory subject matter.
A 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 21-40 is found 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 21 and 31 are directed to a system. Claim 36 is directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 21 recites:
A computer-implemented user interface control system, comprising: a memory configured to store, for each of a plurality of predefined workflow instances, a respective workflow state data structure, each workflow state data structure comprising:
a set of interface input node identifiers associated with the workflow instance,
user response data corresponding to completed interface input nodes, and a state completion value computed based on satisfaction of a workflow-specific terminal condition; and
a controller coupled to the memory and configured to:
generate, at a user device, an initial interface input screen corresponding to a selected workflow instance of the plurality of predefined workflow instances;
receive user input responsive to the initial interface input screen and store the user input in the workflow state data structure associated with the selected workflow instance;
evaluate, based on the stored user input, whether the workflow-specific terminal condition associated with the selected workflow instance has been satisfied;
in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has not been satisfied, dynamically generate a subsequent interface input screen selected from the set of interface input node identifiers associated with the selected workflow instance,
wherein selection of the subsequent interface input screen is based on the stored user response data;
in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied, update the state completion value for the selected workflow instance and generate a workflow terminal interface comprising a visual state indicator associated with the selected workflow instance; and
generate a multi-workflow status interface comprising a plurality of visual state indicators, each visual state indicator corresponding to a respective workflow instance of the plurality of predefined workflow instances and reflecting the state completion value stored in the memory for the respective workflow instance.
Claim 22 recites: wherein the workflow state data structure further comprises a plurality of state flags respectively corresponding to the set of interface input node identifiers, each state flag indicating whether a corresponding interface input node has been completed.
Claim 23 recites: wherein the controller is configured to dynamically generate the subsequent interface input screen by executing a state transition function that maps (i) the stored user response data and (ii) the state completion value to a next interface input node identifier.
Claim 24 recites: wherein the workflow-specific terminal condition comprises a requirement that user response data be stored for at least a threshold number of interface input node identifiers of the set of interface input node
Claim 25 recites: wherein the memory is configured to store the workflow state data structure in association with a user identifier, and wherein the controller is configured to retrieve the workflow state data structure in response to a subsequent user session to resume the workflow instance at a last-completed interface input node identifier.
Claim 26 recites: wherein the multi-workflow status interface comprises a plurality of selectable icons respectively corresponding to the plurality of predefined workflow instances, and wherein each selectable icon is rendered with a display attribute that is modified based on the state completion value for the corresponding workflow instance.
Claim 27 recites: wherein the modified display attribute comprises altering a background color of a respective selectable icon in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied for the corresponding workflow instance.
Claim 28 recites: wherein the controller is configured to generate the multi-workflow status interface to include a numeric completion metric representing a number of workflow instances for which the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied.
Claim 29 recites: wherein the controller is configured to transmit at least a portion of the stored user response data to a remote service provider system and receive, from the remote service provider system, a service-provider response that is stored in the workflow state data structure and used to determine whether the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied.
Claim 30 recites: wherein the controller is configured to generate an administrative interface that includes a plurality of selectable attributes, receive a selection of at least one selectable attribute, and update a list of users displayed in the administrative interface based on the selection of the at least one selectable attribute and based on corresponding workflow state data structures stored in the memory.
Claim 31 recites: A distributed computing system for state-driven interface generation comprising:
a client device comprising a display and an input interface; and a server system communicatively coupled to the client device over a network, the server system comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing, for each of a plurality of predefined workflow instances, a corresponding workflow state data structure, each workflow state data structure comprising:
a set of interface input node identifiers associated with the workflow instance,
user response data corresponding to completed interface input nodes, and a state completion value determined based on satisfaction of a workflow-specific terminal condition; and
one or more processors configured to:
transmit, to the client device, data defining an initial interface input screen corresponding
to a selected workflow instance;
receive, from the client device, user input data generated in response to the initial interface input screen and store the user input data in the workflow state data structure associated with the selected workflow instance;
evaluate, using the stored user input data, whether the workflow-specific terminal condition associated with the selected workflow instance has been satisfied;
in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has not been satisfied, select a subsequent interface input node identifier from the set of interface input node identifiers associated with the selected workflow instance and transmit data defining a subsequent interface input screen corresponding to the selected subsequent interface input node identifier; and
in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied, update the state completion value for the selected workflow instance and transmit data defining a workflow terminal interface comprising a visual state indicator associated with the selected workflow instance;
wherein the server system is further configured to transmit data defining a multi- workflow status interface comprising a plurality of visual state indicators respectively corresponding to the plurality of predefined workflow instances and reflecting the state completion values stored in the non-transitory memory.
Claim 32 recites: wherein the one or more processors are configured to store, in the workflow state data structure, a respective completion flag for each interface input node identifier of the set of interface input node identifiers, the completion flag indicating whether corresponding user input data has been received for the interface input node identifier.
Claim 33 recites: wherein selecting the subsequent interface input node identifier comprises executing a state transition function that maps (i) the stored user response data and (ii) the state completion value to a next interface input node identifier.
Claim 34 recites: wherein the one or more processors are configured to maintain, in the workflow state data structure, a session-resume pointer identifying a last-completed interface input node identifier, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the subsequent interface input screen in response to a later session based on the session-resume pointer.
Claim 35 recites: wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the multi-workflow status interface such that each visual state indicator is rendered with a display attribute selected from a plurality of display attributes based on whether the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied for a corresponding workflow instance.
Claim 36 recites: A computer-implemented method for state-driven interface generation in a distributed computing environment, the method comprising: storing, in a non-transitory memory of a server system, for each of a plurality of predefined workflow instances, a corresponding workflow state data structure, each workflow state data structure comprising:
a set of interface input node identifiers associated with the workflow instance,
user response data corresponding to completed interface input nodes, and a state completion value determined based on satisfaction of a workflow-specific terminal condition;
transmitting, from the server system to a client device over a network, data defining an initial interface input screen corresponding to a selected workflow instance;
receiving, at the server system from the client device, user input data generated in response to the initial interface input screen and storing the user input data in the workflow state data structure associated with the selected workflow instance;
evaluating, by the server system using the stored user input data, whether the workflow-specific terminal condition associated with the selected workflow instance has been satisfied;
in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has not been satisfied, selecting a subsequent interface input node identifier from the set of interface input node identifiers associated with the selected workflow instance and transmitting, to the client device, data defining a subsequent interface input screen corresponding to the selected subsequent interface input node identifier;
in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied, updating the state completion value for the selected workflow instance and transmitting, to the client device, data defining a workflow terminal interface comprising a visual state indicator associated with the selected workflow instance; and
transmitting, from the server system to the client device, data defining a multi-workflow status interface comprising a plurality of visual state indicators respectively corresponding to the plurality of predefined workflow instances and reflecting the state completion values stored in the non-transitory memory.
Claim 37 recites: storing, in the workflow state data structure, a respective completion flag for each interface input node identifier of the set of interface input node identifiers, each completion flag indicating whether corresponding user input data has been received.
Claim 38 recites: wherein selecting the subsequent interface input node identifier comprises executing a state transition function that maps (i) the stored user response data and (ii) the state completion value to a next interface input node identifier.
Claim 39 recites: maintaining, in the workflow state data structure, a session-resume pointer identifying a last-completed interface input node identifier, and transmitting the subsequent interface input screen in response to a later session based on the session-resume pointer.
Claim 40 recites: generating the multi-workflow status interface such that each visual state indicator is rendered with a display attribute selected from a plurality of display attributes based on whether the workflow- specific terminal condition has been satisfied for a corresponding workflow instance.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describes functions of:
“in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has not been satisfied, dynamically generate a subsequent interface input screen selected from the set of interface input node identifiers associated with the selected workflow instance, wherein selection of the subsequent interface input screen is based on the stored user response data, in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied, update the state completion value for the selected workflow instance and generate a workflow terminal interface comprising a visual state indicator associated with the selected workflow instance, and generate a multi-workflow status interface comprising a plurality of visual state indicators, each visual state indicator corresponding to a respective workflow instance of the plurality of predefined workflow instances and reflecting the state completion value for the respective workflow instance”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
The claimed “user device”, “user interface control system”, “controller”, “processor”, “memory”, “database” and “memory” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(1).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Presenting data on a screen is similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one controller which is similar to a generic processor, and wherein the controller presents data at the user device.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of presenting data on a computer screen as particularly noted in claims 21, 31 and 36.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “controller”, “memory”, a “database”, and a “user device” which does not perform any functions does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed controller is noted to a be a generic computer for presenting data. The additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “controller”, “memory”, “user device” and “database” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. 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.
Accordingly, claims 21, 31 and 36 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has not been satisfied, dynamically generate a subsequent interface input screen selected from the set of interface input node identifiers associated with the selected workflow instance, wherein selection of the subsequent interface input screen is based on the stored user response data, in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied, update the state completion value for the selected workflow instance and generate a workflow terminal interface comprising a visual state indicator associated with the selected workflow instance, and generate a multi-workflow status interface comprising a plurality of visual state indicators, each visual state indicator corresponding to a respective workflow instance of the plurality of predefined workflow instances and reflecting the state completion value for the respective workflow instance” as recited in independent claim 21.
“evaluate, using the stored user input data, whether the workflow-specific terminal condition associated with the selected workflow instance has been satisfied, in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has not been satisfied, select a subsequent interface input node identifier from the set of interface input node identifiers associated with the selected workflow instance and transmit data defining a subsequent interface input screen corresponding to the selected subsequent interface input node identifier, and in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied, update the state completion value for the selected workflow instance and transmit data defining a workflow terminal interface comprising a visual state indicator associated with the selected workflow instance; wherein the server system is further configured to transmit data defining a multi-workflow status interface comprising a plurality of visual state indicators respectively corresponding to the plurality of predefined workflow instances and reflecting the state completion values stored in the non-transitory memory” as recited in independent claim 31.
“in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has not been satisfied, selecting a subsequent interface input node identifier from the set of interface input node identifiers associated with the selected workflow instance and transmitting, to the client device, data defining a subsequent interface input screen corresponding to the selected subsequent interface input node identifier, in response to determining that the workflow-specific terminal condition has been satisfied, updating the state completion value for the selected workflow instance and transmitting, to the client device, data defining a workflow terminal interface comprising a visual state indicator associated with the selected workflow instance, and transmitting, from the server system to the client device, data defining a multi-workflow status interface comprising a plurality of visual state indicators respectively corresponding to the plurality of predefined workflow instances and reflecting the state completion values stored in the non-transitory memory” as recited in independent claim 36.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
March 9, 2026