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
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on August 9, 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Double Patenting Rejection
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131 (c). A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/ file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims of the present application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,432. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims) because claims of the present application are just broader versions of the patent claims.
US Patent 12,099,432
Present Application
1. A computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: identifying electronic data corresponding to an event-based workflow, the electronic data including data corresponding to a first step corresponding to one or more events and data corresponding to a second step corresponding to the one or more events, wherein the first step is different from the second step; after receiving event data corresponding to the event-based workflow, attempting to cause execution of the first step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to receiving an indication that execution of the first step corresponding to the one or more events has failed: in response to determining that the first step is associated with a first set of one or more execution criteria, resolving failure of the first step in a first manner that corresponds to the first set of one or more execution criteria; and in response to determining that the first step is associated with a second set of one or more execution criteria that is different from the first set of one or more execution criteria, resolving failure of the first step in a second manner that corresponds to the second set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the second manner is different from the first manner.
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more execution criteria or the second set of one or more execution criteria is defined as being related to the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: after resolving failure of the first step, attempting to cause execution of the second step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to receiving an indication that execution of the second step corresponding to the one or more events has failed, resolving failure of the second step in a third manner that corresponds to a third set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the third set of one or more execution criteria is not defined as being related to the first step.
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the event-based workflow is a modified version of a preexisting event-based workflow, wherein the first step is an addition, to the preexisting event-based workflow, made by a third-party that is not the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow, and wherein the second step is present in the preexisting event-based workflow and is created by the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow.
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein resolving failure of the first step in the first manner includes disabling the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: in conjunction with disabling the first step, sending one or more notifications to one or more users, who have indicated that the first step should be performed, that the first step has been disabled.
5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein: in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to the second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server.
6. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the first type of data includes data that is accessible by the first server but not the third-party server.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system, the one or more programs including instructions for: identifying electronic data corresponding to an event-based workflow, the electronic data including data corresponding to a first step corresponding to the one or more events and data corresponding to a second step corresponding to one or more events, wherein the first step is different from the second step; after identifying data corresponding to the event-based workflow, attempting to cause execution of the first step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to receiving an indication that execution of the first step corresponding to the one or more events has failed: in response to determining that the first step is associated with a first set of one or more execution criteria, resolving failure of the first step in a first manner that corresponds to the first set of one or more execution criteria; and in response to determining that the first step is associated with a second set of one or more execution criteria that is different from the first set of one or more execution criteria, resolving failure of the first step in a second manner that corresponds to the second set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the second manner is different from the first manner.
9. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the first set of one or more execution criteria or the second set of one or more execution criteria is defined as being related to the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: after resolving failure of the first step, attempting to cause execution of the second step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to receiving an indication that execution of the second step corresponding to the one or more events has failed, resolving failure of the second step in a third manner that corresponds a third set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the third set of one or more execution criteria is not defined as being related to the first step.
10. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the event-based workflow is a modified version of a preexisting event-based workflow, wherein the first step is an addition, to the preexisting event-based workflow, made by a third-party that is not the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow, and wherein the second step is present in the preexisting event-based workflow and is created by the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow.
11. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein: in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to the second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server.
12. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the first type of data includes data that is accessible by the first server but not the third-party server.
15. A method, comprising: by a computer system: identifying electronic data corresponding to an event-based workflow, the electronic data including data corresponding to a first step corresponding to one or more events and data corresponding to a second step corresponding to the one or more events, wherein the first step is different from the second step; after identifying data corresponding to the event-based workflow, attempting to cause execution of the first step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to receiving an indication that execution of the first step corresponding to the one or more events has failed: in response to determining that the first step is associated with a first set of one or more execution criteria, resolving failure of the first step in a first manner that corresponds to the first set of one or more execution criteria; and in response to determining that the first step is associated with a second set of one or more execution criteria that is different from the first set of one or more execution criteria, resolving failure of the first step in a second manner that corresponds to the second set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the second manner is different from the first manner.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the first set of one or more execution criteria or the second set of one or more execution criteria is defined as being related to the first step, and wherein the method further comprises: after resolving failure of the first step, attempting to cause execution of the second step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to receiving an indication that execution of the second step corresponding to the one or more events has failed, resolving failure of the second step in a third manner that corresponds a third set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the third set of one or more execution criteria is not defined as being related to the first step.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the event-based workflow is a modified version of a preexisting event-based workflow, wherein the first step is an addition, to the preexisting event-based workflow, made by a third-party that is not the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow, and wherein the second step is present in the preexisting event-based workflow and is created by the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein: in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to the second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the first type of data includes data that is accessible by the first server but not the third-party server.
1. A computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving, from a host platform system, a user interface corresponding to an event-based workflow; generating event data based on a user input to the user interface; providing the event data to the host platform system causing the host platform system to attempt to execute a first step corresponding to one or more events of the event-based workflow, wherein a failure to execute the first step is resolved in at least one of a first manner or a second manner, the first manner corresponds to a first set of one or more execution criteria associated with the first step, and the second manner corresponds to a second set of one or more execution criteria associated with the first step; in response to providing the event data, receiving, from the host platform system, a result corresponding to the attempted execution of the first step; and updating the user interface based on the result.
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more execution criteria or the second set of one or more execution criteria is defined as being related to the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: after failure to execute the first step is resolved, attempting to cause execution of a second step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to failure to execute the second step corresponding to the one or more events, resolving failure of the second step in a third manner that corresponds to a third set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the third set of one or more execution criteria is not defined as being related to the first step.
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the event-based workflow is a modified version of a preexisting event-based workflow, wherein the first step is an addition, to the preexisting event-based workflow, made by a third-party that is not a creator of the preexisting event-based workflow, and wherein a second step is present in the preexisting event-based workflow and is created by the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow.
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein resolving failure of the first step in the first manner includes disabling the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: in conjunction with disabling the first step, receiving one or more notifications from the host platform system that the first step has been disabled.
5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein: in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to a second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server.
6. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the first type of data includes data that is accessible by the first server but not the third-party server.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving, from a host platform system, a user interface corresponding to an event-based workflow; generating event data based on a user input to the user interface; providing the event data to the host platform system causing the host platform system to attempt to execute a first step corresponding to one or more events of the event-based workflow, wherein a failure to execute the first step is resolved in at least one of a first manner or a second manner, the first manner corresponds to a first set of one or more execution criteria associated with the first step, and the second manner corresponds to a second set of one or more execution criteria associated with the first step; in response to providing the event data, receiving, from the host platform system, a result corresponding to the attempted execution of the first step; and updating the user interface based on the result.
9. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the first set of one or more execution criteria or the second set of one or more execution criteria is defined as being related to the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: after failure to execute the first step is resolved, attempting to cause execution of a second step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to failure to execute the second step corresponding to the one or more events, resolving failure of the second step in a third manner that corresponds to a third set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the third set of one or more execution criteria is not defined as being related to the first step.
10. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the event-based workflow is a modified version of a preexisting event-based workflow, wherein the first step is an addition, to the preexisting event-based workflow, made by a third-party that is not a creator of the preexisting event-based workflow, and wherein a second step is present in the preexisting event-based workflow and is created by the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow.
12. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein: in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to a second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server.
13. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the first type of data includes data that is accessible by the first server but not the third-party server.
15. A method, comprising: by a computer system: receiving, from a host platform system, a user interface corresponding to an event-based workflow; generating event data based on a user input to the user interface; providing the event data to the host platform system causing the host platform system to attempt to execute a first step corresponding to one or more events of the event-based workflow, wherein a failure to execute the first step is resolved in at least one of a first manner or a second manner, the first manner corresponds to a first set of one or more execution criteria associated with the first step, and the second manner corresponds to a second set of one or more execution criteria associated with the first step; in response to providing the event data, receiving, from the host platform system, a result corresponding to the attempted execution of the first step; and updating the user interface based on the result.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the first set of one or more execution criteria or the second set of one or more execution criteria is defined as being related to the first step, and further comprising: after failure to execute the first step is resolved, attempting to cause execution of a second step corresponding to the one or more events; and in response to failure to execute the second step corresponding to the one or more events, resolving failure of the second step in a third manner that corresponds to a third set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the third set of one or more execution criteria is not defined as being related to the first step.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the event-based workflow is a modified version of a preexisting event-based workflow, wherein the first step is an addition, to the preexisting event-based workflow, made by a third-party that is not a creator of the preexisting event-based workflow, and wherein a second step is present in the preexisting event-based workflow and is created by the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein: in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to a second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the first type of data includes data that is accessible by the first server but not the third-party server.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0278066 to Chakravarty et al. (hereafter “Chakravarty”).
Claim 1.
Chakravarty discloses a computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
receiving, from a host platform system, a user interface corresponding to an event-based workflow (FIG.3 and related text);
generating event data based on a user input to the user interface (FIG.4, FIG.6, and related text);
providing the event data to the host platform system causing the host platform system to attempt to execute a first step corresponding to one or more events of the event-based workflow (FIG.8 and related text),
wherein a failure to execute the first step is resolved in (0006, 0008, 0026, 0028),
in response to providing the event data, receiving, from the host platform system, a result corresponding to the attempted execution of the first step; and updating the user interface based on the result (FIG.8, update the user interface based on block 119/Yes incident resolved, block 119/No workflow instance incomplete, block 114 time out/Yes, block 118/No sub-incident created).
Claim 2.
Chakravarty discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more execution criteria or the second set of one or more execution criteria is defined as being related to the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for:
after failure to execute the first step is resolved, attempting to cause execution of a second step corresponding to the one or more events (FIG.8, block 118/Yes, block 113/Yes); and
in response to failure to execute the second step corresponding to the one or more events (FIG.8, block 117, block 111/Yes perform the second step),
resolving failure of the second step in a third manner that corresponds to a third set of one or more execution criteria, wherein the third set of one or more execution criteria is not defined as being related to the first step (0006, 0008, 0026, 0028, a different type of incidents).
Claim 7.
Chakravarty discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first step and a second step are customizable based on a preference of a publisher of the first step (0011, 0026, 0028, 0029).
Claims 8, 9, and 14.
These claims are medium versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 1, 2, and 7, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
Claims 15 and 16.
These claims are medium versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 1 and 2, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakravarty in view of US 2007/0074211 to Klug (hereafter “Klug”).
Claim 4.
Chakravarty does not disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein resolving failure of the first step in the first manner includes disabling the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: in conjunction with disabling the first step, receiving one or more notifications from the host platform system that the first step has been disabled.
However, Klug discloses resolving failure of the first step in the first manner includes disabling the first step, and wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: in conjunction with disabling the first step, receiving one or more notifications from the host platform system that the first step has been disabled (0057, 0063, 0081).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Klug’s teaching into Chakravarty‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to indicate current states of workflow tasks as suggested by Klug (0081).
Claim 11.
This claim is a medium version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 4, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 18.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 4, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
8. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakravarty in view of US 2022/0417200 to Brevoort et al. (hereafter “Brevoort”).
Claim 5.
Chakravarty does not disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein: in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to a second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server.
However, Brevoort discloses in accordance with a determination that data corresponding to the first step is a first type of data and data corresponding to a second step is a second type of data that is different from the first type of data, the first step is required to be performed by a first server and the second step is required to be performed by a third-party server (0098).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brevoort’s teaching into Chakravarty‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to execute workflow instructions in different servers as suggested by Brevoort (0098).
Claim 12.
This claim is a medium version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 5, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 19.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 5, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 3 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the event-based workflow is a modified version of a preexisting event-based workflow, wherein the first step is an addition, to the preexisting event-based workflow, made by a third-party that is not a creator of the preexisting event-based workflow, and wherein a second step is present in the preexisting event-based workflow and is created by the creator of the preexisting event-based workflow,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating claim 3 into claims 1, 8, and 15 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claims 10 and 17 are similar to claim 3 and also allowable.
10. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 6 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating intervening claim 5 and claim 6 into claims 1, 8, and 15 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claims 13 and 20 are similar to claim 6 and also allowable.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights