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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 8/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 13-15
A person examining a printed report is not receiving an application-generated endpoint call, operating as an endpoint in a computer-to-computer transaction, organizing executable software tasks and their dependencies as nodes and edges of a directed acyclic graph used by a workflow orchestration tool, receiving an event that serves as a software-task initialization trigger, or maintaining a software task in an uninitialized state by not triggering its initialization. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill.A, explains that a claim does not recite a mental process when the claimed limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. That principle applies here.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations of computing device with an endpoint and workflow orchestration tool are treated as additional elements. Additional elements are not treated under step 2A prong one. The claim limitations are still reciting the abstract idea steps of receiving data.
Applicant argues on page 14
The Office also characterizes coordination, sequencing, and task-execution management as business problems because a manager may manage tasks. Applicant does not dispute that a human manager can assign work or instruct a person not to begin work. That analogy, however, omits the operations actually claimed. Claim 1 concerns initialization of interdependent software tasks from different software applications executing in different execution environments. The claimed computing device receives machine-generated execution results through exposed endpoints, determines a dependency status from the centrally stored results, and uses a workflow orchestration tool to control whether a dependent software task is triggered for initialization. The workflow orchestration tool implements that control through an event-gated execution mechanism in which the dependent task is triggered only in response to a success event emitted upon successful completion of its prerequisite task.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Determining whether a task should be triggered or not is not a technical problem and it still falls under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process since it is merely analyzing data to make a determination. A user is able to determine whether to trigger a task or not based on completion of a prerequisite task. The computer running software is merely an additional element that is used as a tool to carryout the step.
Applicant argues on page 15
Nor does claim 1 fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. The Office refers to paragraph [0039] of the Specification and states that the disclosed user interactions relate to business interactions between people. Paragraph [0039], however, merely states that users may access the task process through a user interface. Claim 1 does not recite that optional user interaction. It does not recite an agreement, legal obligation, commercial transaction, sales activity, human relationship, or management of personal behavior.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite monitoring workflows/tasks which also include interactions between users and messaging capabilities as seen in para 0035, 0039, and figure 1 in Applicant’s specification and drawings. In addition, para 0008 recites managing tasks by way of status reports. The claims also determine whether tasks fails. Task failure has to do with error mitigation as seen in para 0052 of Applicant’s specifications. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations/interactions between people).
Applicant argues on page 16-17
The Specification identifies a problem arising specifically when tasks from different software applications and different execution environments must operate as one interdependent process. Paragraph [004 7] explains that conventional tool cannot coordinate tasks of different technologies to work together and that the disclosed centralized solution provides safeguards against executing tasks out of order and continuing after a failed task.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Coordinating tasks, ensuring proper sequencing, and managing execution of tasks are not technical problems but business problems. These tasks are handled by a manager who manages tasks. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Applicant argues on page 17
The eligibility analysis does not require that an improvement to computer functionality physically turn a processor on or off. Software may control computer operation and provide a technological improvement through the manner in which executable processes, stored information, events, and computer resources are organized and used. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-39 (Fed. Cir. 2016). MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) likewise recognize improvements in computer functionality and other technical fields as practical applications without requiring a change in hardware power state.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem therefore there is no improvement to computer functionality. The claims are solving a business problem of managing tasks/workflows. These tasks are handled by a manager who manages tasks. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Applicant argues on page 19-20
Claim 1 also recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The Office Action relies on paragraph [0027] of the Specification for the proposition that the computing device may be implemented using general-purpose computing components. The possible use of general-purpose processors does not establish that the claimed ordered combination of components and operations was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Whether a claimed feature or combination was well-understood, routine, and
conventional is a factual issue. Berkheimerv. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The general-purpose-computer language in paragraph [0027] may describe the underlying hardware, but it does not establish conventionality of the claimed endpoint-mediated, centralized, DAG-based, and event-gated preinitialization control arrangement. The conclusory treatment of the elements as generic computer functions therefore does not satisfy the factual-support requirements of MPEP § 2106.07(a), subsection Ill. Claim 1 consequently recites an inventive concept when its limitations are considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner did not use the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 8/4/2023 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” Accordingly, Berkheimer evidence is not required.
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, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are directed to a method, computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium, and system.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 15 recite the limitations of
Monitoring…a plurality of interdependent tasks that include tasks…controlling…a workflow of the plurality of interdependent tasks to ensure the plurality of interdependent tasks run in a correct sequence; receiving…machine-generated execution results generated by the different execution environments for the plurality of interdependent tasks; storing…the machine-generated execution results in … determining…that a task among the plurality of interdependent tasks has failed to complete; and
and executing…an action based upon, at least in part, a determination that the task among the plurality of interdependent tasks has failed to complete…preventing at least one additional task that depends on the task from running prior to initialization of the at least one additional task.
wherein preventing the at least one additional task from running includes receiving… a call…to obtain permission to initialize the at least one additional task; determining a dependency status for the at least one additional task…and controlling initialization of the at least one additional task based on the dependency status …configured to trigger initialization of the at least one additional task only in response to a success event emitted upon successful completion of the task, such that, when the dependency status indicates that the task has failed to complete and the task does not emit the success event… does not trigger initialization of the at least one additional task, thereby maintaining the at least one additional task in an uninitialized state and enforcing a dependency constraint among the plurality of interdependent tasks.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of monitoring, receiving, obtaining, storing, initializing, controlling, determining, and executing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer readable medium, the claim language encompasses simply monitoring tasks, controlling a workflow, determining a task failed to complete, and executing an action based on the determination. The execution includes the abstract idea step of preventing a task. The controlling of initializing tasks includes enforcing dependency constraints. In addition, the claim limitations recite additional abstract idea steps such as storing and receiving data. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. Managing tasks/workflows is not novel and has been done before the technological age. Given a real-world example, these steps are carried out by a manager in charge of a workflow.
The claims also recite monitoring workflows/tasks which also include interactions between users and messaging capabilities as seen in para 0035, 0039, and figure 1 in Applicant’s specification and drawings. In addition, para 0008 recites managing tasks by way of status reports. The claims also determine whether tasks fails. Taks failure has to do with error mitigation as seen in para 0052 of Applicant’s specifications. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations/interactions between people/risk mitigation).
It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components do not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of computing device, software applications, electronic notification, computer program product, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, central datastore, computing system, and memories.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe what the action is such as sending an electronic notification. In addition, the dependent claims further describe how the task data is seen such as on a rendered dashboard.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method however method is not considered an additional element, claim 1 further recites computing device, central datastore and software applications
Claim 2, 9 recite electronic notification
Claim 3, 10 recite electronic mail notification
Claim 8 recites computer program product, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, central datastore, processors, software applications, and computing device
Claim 15 recites computing system, processors, memories, software applications, central datastore, and computing device
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0027.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0027. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kzoloski (US20140180752A1) Discloses an application selection system for completing a work process includes an environment activity module that detects at least one event to determine an environmental activity occurring in an environment exposed to a user of the application selection system.
Kumar (US20100324948A1) Discloses a present invention that extends to methods, systems, and computer program products for managing event timelines.
Ohashi (US 20140297355 A1) Discloses a first executing unit that executes, among tasks included in a first workflow, a first task group including one or more tasks using a resource. When a task included in the first task group is stopped, a rollback processing unit restores the resource to its former state prior to the execution of the first task group.
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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights