DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed January 28, 2026. Claims 1, 3–6, and 8–10 are amended, and claims 2 and 7 are canceled. Currently, claims 1, 3–6, and 8–10 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to obviate the previous interpretation of claims 1–5 as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Accordingly, the previous interpretation of claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is not sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Further, Applicant’s Response necessitates new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter because the claims embody improvements in workflow creation and improvements in the operation of a manufacturing facility. Examiner disagrees and submits that the alleged improvements are not technical improvements. Instead, improvements in workflow creation and in manufacturing operations are business improvements that reside within the abstract claim elements identified in Step 2A Prong One. Further, to the extent that Applicant asserts that the alleged improvements are derived from the automation of workflow creation, Examiner notes that the mere automation of manual processes may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant next asserts that the automated creation of a workflow cannot be practically determined in the human mind or with a pen and paper. Examiner disagrees. As noted by Applicant, paragraph 6 of the Specification expressly indicates that workflow creation may be performed manually. Although complex, Examiner maintains that the recited claim elements may be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper based on Applicant’s Specification. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant asserts that the combination of claim elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the combination of claim elements is unconventional. Examiner disagrees. As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument relies on misclassifying the abstract claim elements under Step 2A Prong One as additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. MPEP 2106.07(a) sets forth the process for formulating a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and indicates that, under Step 2A Prong Two, “the rejection should identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.” Examiner submits that elements identified as abstract under Step 2A Prong One are not additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two because abstract claim elements are not “recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.”
In view of the above, even if the combination of the elements of claim 1 are unconventional, the elements are abstract claim elements under Step 2A Prong One and cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions.” (See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(I)). As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained and reasserted below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103. More particularly, when considered in combination with the remaining claim elements, the prior art of record does not expressly disclose the element for “determining whether to classify the respective task into one of a plurality of existing task classifications or into a newly created task classification, wherein the newly created task classification is created based on determining that values of parameters belonging to the first parameter group are completely matched with each other and parameters belonging to the second parameter group are insufficiently similar to each other among the plurality of existing task classifications to satisfy a similarity threshold,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 3–6, and 8–10 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.
As amended, claims 1 and 6 recite “determining whether to classify the respective task into one of a plurality of existing task classifications or into a newly created task classification, wherein the newly created task classification is created based on determining that values of parameters belonging to the first parameter group are completely matched with each other and parameters belonging to the second parameter group are insufficiently similar to each other among the plurality of existing task classifications to satisfy a similarity threshold.” Although Applicant cites FIG. 25 and the associated paragraphs of Applicant’s Specification as supporting the amendment, Examiner submits that the amendment is unsupported by Applicant’s Specification and constitutes new matter.
FIG. 25 and paragraphs 125–130 of Applicant’s Specification disclose a process for registering a new task classification. Paragraphs 126–127 disclose that when there are no extracted task classifications, i.e., there are no parameter values of the target task matching parameter values of each task classification, a new task classification is registered. Further, paragraphs 129–130 disclose an alternative condition for registering a new task classification, which requires no classifications meeting a similarity threshold.
Unlike Applicant’s Specification, the amended language creates a new task classification when two conditions are both met: (1) “values of parameters belonging to the first parameter group are completely matched with each other” and (2) “parameters belonging to the second parameter group are insufficiently similar to each other among the plurality of existing task classifications to satisfy a similarity threshold”. Examiner submits that Applicant’s Specification does not disclose the first condition and does not disclose the second condition as requiring simultaneous fulfillment with another condition.
In view of the above, claims 1 and 6 contain 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 3–5 and 8–10, which depend from claims 1 and 6, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 3–5 and 8–10 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3–6, and 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “a task of a task classification” in the element for “recommending a task of a task classification”. However, claims 1 and 6 previously recite “a task classification of a task” in the step for “specifying”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitations of “a task” and “a task classification” to reference the previous recitations or intends to introduce a second, different “task” or “task classification”.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “recommending a first task of a first task classification”.
Claims 1 and 6 further recite “a task classification” in the element reciting “each respective task of a task classification”. Examiner submits that the recitation renders the scope of claims 1 and 6 indefinite for the same reasons as stated above.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “each respective task of [[a]] the task classification”.
Claims 1 and 6 further recite “the parameters of the respective task”, “the parameters belonging” and “the first and second parameter groups” in the element reciting “the parameters of the respective task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “[[the]] parameters of the respective task” and “[[the]] parameters belonging to the first parameter group and the second parameter group”.
In view of the above, claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3–5 and 8–10, which depend from claims 1 and 6, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–5 and 7–10 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As amended, claim 3 does not identify the claim from which claim 3 depends. Accordingly, the scope of claim 3 is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting the “workflow creation support device according to claim 1, wherein”.
Claims 4 and 9 recite “a task classification determined based on the appearance probability”. However, claims 1 and 6, from which claims 4 and 9 depend, previously recites “a task classification based on an appearance probability”. As a result, the scope of claims 4 and 9 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claims 4 and 9 to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “task classification”.
For purposes of examination, claims 4 and 9 are interpreted as reciting “extracting all tasks of [[a]] the task classification determined based on the appearance probability”.
Claims 4 and 9 further recite “the extracted task” in the element for “evaluating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “evaluating … an execution cost of [[the]] an extracted task”.
Claim 8 recites a “method according to claim 7”. However, claim 7 is canceled. As a result, the scope of claim 8 is indefinite because claim 8 depends from a canceled claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as reciting the “workflow creation supporting method according to claim [[7]]6”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 3–6, and 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1, 3–6, and 8–10 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “managing definition contents of an existing workflow created in past”; “determining a task candidate of a step to be targeted in a new workflow to be created, on a basis of definition contents of a predetermined number of steps of previous and/or subsequent tasks already defined in the new workflow and definition contents of the existing workflow created in the past”; “classifying each of the previous and/or subsequent tasks of each step already defined in the new workflow into any of task classifications, extracting the existing workflow in which tasks of a same task classification exist in a same order, specifying a task classification of a task of the step to be targeted in each extracted existing workflow, and recommending a task of a task classification based on an appearance probability as the task candidate of the step to be targeted in the new workflow, on a basis of an appearance probability of each specified task classification, wherein each respective task of a task classification is defined by a plurality of types of parameters, the parameters of the respective task are managed to be divided into a first parameter group that is determined to be same in an exact match, a second parameter group in which similar ones are treated as same, and a third parameter group other than the parameters belonging to the first and second parameter groups”; and “the operations further include: determining whether to classify the respective task into one of a plurality of existing task classifications or into a newly created task classification, wherein the newly created task classification is created based on determining that values of parameters belonging to the first parameter group are completely matched with each other and parameters belonging to the second parameter group are insufficiently similar to each other among the plurality of existing task classifications to satisfy a similarity threshold.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for recommending workflow steps and classifications based on existing workflows. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 6 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 6 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3–5 and 8–10 further describe the process for recommending workflow steps based on existing workflows and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 3–5 and 8–10 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a processor configured by execution of an executable program. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 6 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 6 further includes a support device performing processing steps, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 6 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 5 and 10 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a predetermined screen and a step for displaying on the screen. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 5 and 10 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3–4 and 8–9 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 3–4 and 8–9 depend. As a result, claims 3–4 and 8–9 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a processor configured by execution of an executable program. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 6 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 6 further includes a support device performing processing steps, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 6 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 5 and 10 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a predetermined screen and a step for displaying on the screen. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 5 and 10 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3–4 and 8–9 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 3–4 and 8–9 depend. As a result, claims 3–4 and 8–9 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3–6, and 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623