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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are presented.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-20 are new.
Claims 12-20 are restricted out by original presentation of invention.
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 101:
The Applicant asserts that under the memo of Dejardins the amended claims are allowable. However, this assertion is not persuasive. Desjardins was explicitly for machine learning algorithms and not organizing human activity that doesn’t mention any machine learning. Since the facts in which Desjardins was found to be patent eligible are drastically different than the present claims, even as amended, the Examiner cannot find this argument persuasive.
Regarding 102:
The rejection has been lifted. However, upon new research and examination, the Examiner has raised a 103 rejection that is maintained. See below for further details and clarification.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claim 1 when “taken as a whole,” is directed to the abstract idea of an organizing human activity.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claim 12 is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The above claim falls within organizing human activity and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.)
Specifically, the limitation elements of, “…Identifying a first principal associated with a job of a workflow…identifying a second principle associated with a job…receiving a first real time message from a first instance…operated by the first principle …indicating a task of the job was selected for an action by the first Principal…and the first instance monitors an…for the job and the task, and wherein the task is a task of a deposit workflow for a deposit requiring validation of deposit information…sending a second real time message to a second instance operated by the second principle…indicated the task of the job is unavailable for modification by the second principle within the second instance…”
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…network connection (first and second)…collaboration interface…server…DOM ”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) as well-understood, routine, conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claim 1 does not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claim 1 does include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…network interface (first and second)…collaboration interface…server…DOM” These amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and a high level of generality.
In addition, Fig.1-2 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the system. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusk et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0097440) (hereinafter, Lusk) in view of NPL-Gadea, (hereinafter, NPL-Gadea).
As per claim 1,
Lusk teaches,
A method, comprising:
identifying a first principal associated with a job of a workflow in a first network connection;
(Claim 1, see also, paragraph 12, see also, Fig. 2 A & 2 B; wherein the entire prior art invention is regarding collaboration between employees for a project/workflow)
identifying a second principal associated with the job in a second network connection;
(Claim 1, see also, paragraph 12, see also, Fig. 2 A & 2 B; wherein the entire prior art invention is regarding collaboration between employees for a project/workflow)
receiving a first real-time message from a first instance of a collaboration interface operated by the first principal over the first network connection indicating a task of the job was selected for an action by the first principal;
(paragraphs 124 & 125; Noting: paragraph 124 discussing how a user selects by opening and working on the document (i.e. task) and paragraphs 124 & 125 go on to discuss how in real time the document is organized with up-to-date information to all authorized users (i.e. real time messaging of the action)
wherein the collaboration interface is hosted by a collaboration manager on a server, and the first instance monitors an in-memory Document Object Model (DOM) object for the job and the task, and wherein the task is a task of a deposit workflow for a deposit requiring validation of deposit information;
(the entire paper discussing in-memory DOM for collaborating on document editing, however, see at least section I and IV parts a& b , discussing of in memory DOM object and changes)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of NPL-Gadea within the invention of Lusk with the motivation of improve the efficiency and editing of documents on the web. (see, NPL-Gadea)
sending a second real-time message to a second instance of the collaboration interface operated by the second principal over the second network connection indicating the task of the job is unavailable for modification by the second principal within the second instance of the collaboration interface wherein the second real-time message causes the second instance to disable editing options for the task and present a lock indication on the task within a task list of the second instance
(paragraph 196; noting “the Lock Selected Document GUI enables authorized users to lock any selected document(s). Other users cannot download the current version of the document or upload a new version thereof if a document is locked.”)
As per claim 2,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving a real-time text message that is provided ,by the second principal, entering text
into a comment or note field of the second instance of the collaboration interface; and
second the real-time text message with a second principal identifier for the second principal to the first instance of the collaboration interface for presenting within a comment or note field of the first instance of the collaboration interface for viewing by the first principal
(paragraphs 209-210).
As per claim 3,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 1 further comprising:
identifying at least one additional principal associated with the job in at least one additional network connection; and
sending the second real-time message to at least one additional instance of the collaboration
interface operated by the at least one additional principal over the at least one additional network connection indicating the task of the job is unavailable for modification by the at least one additional principal within the at least one additional instance of the collaboration interface
(paragraphs 196-197)
As per claim 4,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving a third real-time message from the first instance of the collaboration interface over the first network connection indicating changes associated with attribute values of the task were made by the first principal within the first instance of the collaboration interface; and
second a fourth real-time message to the second instance of the collaboration interface over
the second network connection for presentation to the second principal of the changes associated with the attribute values for the task within the second instance of the collaboration interface.
(paragraph 134).
As per claim 5,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 4 further comprising:
receiving a commit message from the first instance of the collaboration interface over the
first network connection indicating the changes for the attribute values of the task are to be updated to a workflow system for the job; updating the changes for the attribute values of the task to the workflow system for the job;
and
(paragraph 209)
sending a release task lock message to the first instance of the collaboration interface over
the first network connection and to the second instance of the collaboration interface over the second network connection.
(paragraphs 210 & 211).
As per claim 6,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving a release task lock message from the first instance of the collaboration interface
over the first network connection indicating no changes were made to attribute values of the task by the first principal and also indicating that the first principal has released the task; and
(paragraphs 196 & 197)
sending the release task lock message to the second instance of the collaboration interface
over the second network connection indicating the task is available for modification by the second principal within the second instance of the collaboration interface.
(paragraphs 209-211).
As per claim 7,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first principal further includes
establishing the first network connection as a first web socket connection with the first instance of the collaboration interface
(paragraph 208 & 212).
As per claim 8,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 7, wherein identifying the second principal further includes
establishing the second network connection as a second web socket connection with the second instance of the collaboration interface
(paragraph 212).
As per claim 9,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 8, wherein establishing the second network connection further
includes maintaining an association between a first principal identifier for the first principal, a second principal identifier for the second principal, a job identifier for the job, a task identifier for the task, and other task identifiers for other tasks of the job.
(paragraph 212).
As per claim 10,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 9, wherein receiving the first real-time message further includes obtaining from the first real-time message the first principal identifier, the job identifier, and the task identifier and obtaining the second principal identifier from the association
(paragraph 212).
As per claim 11,
Lusk teaches,
the method of claim 10, wherein sending the second real-time message over the
second web socket connection with the first principal identifier, the job identifier, the task identifier, and a task lock instruction to the second instance of the collaboration interface
(paragraphs 196-197, 206, and 212).
As per claims 12-20:
Newly submitted claims 12-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the second invention (i.e. claims 12-20) discuss heavily the DOM aspect of the invention and its critical elements, whereas the originally filed claims did not mention DOM or it’s critical elements.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Conclusion:
Applicants’ 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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
