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 Amendment
This Office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 06/25/2026, the amendments have been considered. Claim 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of Srinivasan fails to address the limitation “modifying instance-specific data without modifying the case lifecycle or the case attributes of the case model, the instance-specific data comprising at least one of: state information of the case lifecycle or the case attributes”, as claimed in Claims 1, 8, and 15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as during the interview, the Examiner indicated that there was no explanation as to how a modification of the instance-specific data is not going to modify the case lifecycle or the case attributes of the case model. The Specification of the instant application does not provide any level of detail that discloses the above-mentioned limitation.
Also, the Remarks discloses on Page 8, amending the claims to differentiate over certain aspects of Doganata, Erhart, and Penrose and that during the interview it was discussed that these prior arts fail to address certain limitations mentioned. However, these prior arts were not used in rejecting the claims and the Remarks are addressing limitations that are not in this application.
The prior art of Srinivasan discloses in Paragraph 0019, updating the case status of the case instance in order to reflect the newly added phase, such that the case status for the case instance reflects not only the status of any currently executing (e.g., previously defined) phase of the lifecycle, but may also reflect the status of the execution of the newly added phase. The case status of the newly added phase can, for example, be appended or added to any existing case status associated with other executing phases of the lifecycle. Paragraph 0061 discloses that the case instance is updated to indicate the case status (e.g., of the phase) associated with the subsequent checklist for the phases. Paragraph 0062 discloses that an implementation allows for simple updating of the lifecycle (e.g., definition) of a case type that provide for dynamic updating to the lifecycle process and management of case instances that have already been instantiated and whose lifecycle is already in progress. Paragraph 0063 discloses dynamic updating to a lifecycle.
Based on the rationale explained above, the Examiner disagrees with the prior art being silent to the claimed embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter of modifying instance-specific data without modifying the case lifecycle or the case attributes of the case model is not discussed throughout the Specification of the instant application or in any of the Drawings. There is no clear indication of how an instance-specific data is modified without actually modifying the case lifecycle or the case attributes of the case model, as discussed during the interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Preetha Srinivasan et al (US 20230048971 A1), hereinafter “Srinivasan”.
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 8, Srinivasan discloses a method and a system for unified case management, comprising:
a processor (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0079, processor);
a non-transitory computer readable medium (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0079, instructions reside on a non-transitory computer-readable medium), comprising instructions for:
defining a case model, the case model comprising case attributes and a case lifecycle (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0037, case model definition is used to create new instances based on the case model. For example, a case model may be defined and stored for an employee and an associated process and a loan application and associated processes. Paragraph 0051, defining a lifecycle for a type of case and including it in the case model definition for a type of case);
at a case administration service, defining the case attributes and the case lifecycle (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0042, instance-specific attributes or state information or other metadata are stored in a case model instance data store. Paragraph 0051, defining a lifecycle for a type of case and including it in the case model definition for a type of case. Paragraph 0056, case model include and/or are associated with a lifecycle definition for a type of case);
at a case configuration service, managing one or more versions of the case model (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0037, case model definition is used to create new instances based on the case model, sometimes referred to herein as “case instances” or “case management instances”, or to provide access to previously-created instances);
at the case administration service, receiving a configuration of the case model and publishing the case model (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0044, a visual or other developer tool may be presented to enable a developer using client system 210 to define a case model);
and at a case application service, deploying an instance of the published case model (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0044, defining case model and deploying the case model), comprising:
executing the case lifecycle of the published case model, the case lifecycle having a plurality of states, each state comprising one or more steps (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0038, case model contains case phases (states). Paragraph 0044, deployment of case model. Paragraph 0051, lifecycle comprises a set of phases representing processes that are performed in association with an instance of the case);
executing a step of the case lifecycle (Srinivasan, Paragraphs 0058-0059, checklist for a phase are associated with an initiating event which will case the execution of the checklist. Each phase of the lifecycle is associated with an independent process that includes a set of ordered tasks and an initiating event), comprising:
communicating with at least one external service (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0058, initiating an event which causes the execution of the checklist);
performing an operation of the at least one external service (Srinivasan, Paragraphs 0058-0059, performing a set of phased of the lifecycle, wherein the phases can be ordered, or sequenced, by associating the checklist with initiating events corresponding to other phases);
and based on the performance of the operation, modifying instance-specific data without modifying the case lifecycle or the case attributes of the case model (Srinivasan, Paragraphs 0061-0063, updating case status associated with the different phases),
the instance-specific data comprising at least one of:
the state information of the case lifecycle or the case attributes (Srinivasan, Paragraphs 0060-0064, updating the case status and the lifecycle based on the performance of the ordered set of tasks of the case instance).
Regarding Claim 2, Srinivasan discloses the method of claim 1 above, wherein:
said defining the case model comprises:
sending a write instruction to the case configuration service and, in response, at the case configuration service, writing the case model to a case model repository (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0042, instance-specific attributes or state information or other metadata may be stored in a case model instance data store (e.g., a database). Paragraph 0045, case model includes metadata and associated behavior to enable instance-specific content objects. Content objects may be accessed via a content management system configured to manage content objects stored in an associated content repository);
and said receiving a configuration of the case model comprises, at the case application service, sending a read instruction to the case configuration service and, in response, at the case configuration service, reading the case model from the case model repository and sending the case model to the case application service (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0045, content objects may be accessed via a content management system 212 configured to manage content objects stored in an associated content repositor. Paragraph 0047, case management module uses database interface to obtain an associated case model definition from case model store, to use the case model to instantiate case instances).
Regarding Claim 3, Srinivasan discloses the method of claim 1 above, further comprising:
defining a case workspace, the case workspace comprising the instance of the published case model, the case workspace comprising a themed user interface (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0037, the case model definition is used to create new instances based on the case model, sometimes referred to herein as “case instances” or “case management instances”, or to provide access to previously-created instances. For example, a case model may be defined and stored for an employee and an associated process and a loan application and associated processes. Paragraph 0044, a case model developer system (e.g., a client computer system) also can connect to case management system via network. In some embodiments, a case model development user interface or service may be accessed and used to define a case model);
and said communicating with at least one external service is based on an interaction with the themed user interface (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0044, a visual or other developer tool may be presented to enable a developer using client system to define a case model and cause the case model to be stored in data storage and deployed by case management system. Paragraphs 0058-0059, performing a set of phased of the lifecycle, wherein the phases can be ordered, or sequenced, by associating the checklist with initiating events corresponding to other phases).
Regarding Claim 4, Srinivasan discloses the method of claim 3 above, wherein the case workspace is a plurality of case workspaces, each of the case workspaces based on the published case model (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0037, Case instances may be created based on the case model and each respective case instance used to manage a corresponding loan application, for example by different respective loan applicants).
Regarding Claim 5, Srinivasan discloses the method of claim 3 above, further comprising:
at the case administration service, receiving an instruction to update the case model (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0019, case status of that case instance may also be updated to reflect the execution status of this newly added phase, such that the case status for the case instance reflects not only the status of any currently executing (e.g., previously defined) phase of the lifecycle, but may also reflect the status of the execution of the newly added phase. Paragraph 0062, lifecycle needs to be updated);
at the case configuration service, based on the received instruction, updating the case model (Srinivasan, Paragraphs 0062-0063, updating the lifecycle);
and at the case application service, republishing the updated case model comprising updating the instance of the case model deployed for each case workspace (Srinivasan, Paragraphs 0019, 0062-00064, dynamically update the lifecycle and the status of the lifecycle for existing case instance and also may utilize and maintain multiple lifecycle statuses at a single point in time).
Regarding Claim 6, Srinivasan discloses the method of claim 3 above, wherein the themed user interface comprises a form for inputting case attributes (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0042, instance-specific attributes or state information or other metadata may be stored in a case model instance data store (e.g., a database). Paragraph 0044, a case model development user interface or service may be accessed and used to define a case model. Paragraph 0066, a visual or other user interface is provided, via network communication interface, to enable case models to be created or modified. For example, a developer may use a browser to access the developer user interface in some embodiments).
Regarding Claim 7, Srinivasan discloses the method of claim 6 above, further comprising:
at the case configuration service, generating a reference to each one of the at least one external service, wherein at the case application service, said communicating with at least one external service is based on the generated reference to each one of the at least one external service (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0045, case management system may be configured, e.g., via the case model, to invoke services or other functionality of content management system with respect to such documents or other content objects. Paragraph 0046, a case model development module is accessible to developers via network communication interface and may be used to create or modify case model definitions. In some embodiments, a visual or other user interface is provided, via network communication interface, to enable case models to be created or modified. For example, a developer may use a browser to access the developer user interface in some embodiments. Paragraph 0055, case management system may expose a case management interface (e.g., as a web service, a browser based interface, a graphical user interface, etc.) adapted to allow users at clients to interact with case management system to define case models or associated data and to create or interact with case management instances).
Regarding Claim 9, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 10, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 11, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 carries similar limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1 and Claim 8 above and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 16, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 2 and Claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 3 and Claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 4 and Claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 5 and Claim 12 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 6 and Claim 13 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
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 JAVIER O GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 4 pm EST.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571)272-7624. 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.
/JAVIER O GUZMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights