DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 2 June 2025.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 21 are pending and have been examined; claims 2, 9, and 16 have been cancelled by Applicant.
This action has been made Non-Final.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 June 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C.§101
Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “ First, claim I specifies the following steps: (i) the electronic device acquires a workflow for a product development process; (ii) in response to the electronic device detecting that a current flow node of the plurality of flow nodes is triggered; (iii) in response to the electronic device detecting that association role information or visual node information in the node attribute information is modified; and (iv) in response to the electronic device detecting that a target control is triggered. It can be seen that the amended claim I is performed by the entity "electronic device," which is tangible in nature, and the method involves interactions between the "electronic device" and the "target control". Therefore, amended claim 1 involves additional elements beyond any alleged law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The ‘electronic device’, recited in the preamble, is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Turning to Applicant’s specification, it is apparent that the ‘electronic device’ amounts to no more than generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry. See Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0014] and [0030], for example.
Further, as stated in TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) "It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea". See MPEP 2106 I. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"). See MPEP 2106.04(d) I.
Applicant further argues: Second, claim 1 also specifies in response to detecting that association role information or visual node information in the node attribute information is modified, determining a to-be-deleted flow node associated with the current flow node, where the to-be-deleted flow node is determined automatically based on detecting that the association role information or the visual node information in the node attribute information is modified. It can be understood that the actions of acquiring a workflow (comprising a plurality of flow nodes), detecting a current flow node of the plurality of flow nodes being triggered, and displaying node attribute information corresponding to the current flow node leads to detecting association role information or visual node information in the node attribute information being modified and determining a to-be-deleted flow node associated with the current flow node. That is, amended claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is unclear how the Applicant emphasized argument that ‘acquiring a workflow (comprising a plurality of flow nodes), detecting a current flow node of the plurality of flow nodes being triggered, and displaying node attribute information corresponding to the current flow node leads to detecting association role information or visual node information in the node attribute information being modified and determining a to-be-deleted flow node associated with the current flow node’ integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Automating an abstract idea is merely using a computer as a tool. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, as shown below, the newly amended limitations of “updating the workflow based on the to-be-deleted flow node, wherein the to-be-deleted flow node is determined automatically based on detecting that the association role information or the visual node information in the node attribute information is modified; and in response to detecting that a target control is triggered, using the updated workflow as a target workflow’ have been found to a part of the abstract idea (see rejection, below, and the Final Rejection, mailed 21 February 2023, which found that claim 2 of the previous set of claims (which is now rolled up into claim 1 of the instant Application) as additional mental steps). These are not additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d) III).
The 101 rejection of the claims is maintained.
35 USC §102 / §103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 June 2025, with respect to the 35 USC §102 and §103 rejections, in view of the amended claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §102 and §103 rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
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 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of: A method for determining a workflow for a product development process, performed by an electronic device, comprising:
acquiring a workflow for a product development process, wherein the workflow comprises a plurality of flow nodes [i.e., collecting information] ;
in response to detecting that a current flow node of the plurality of flow nodes is triggered, displaying node attribute information corresponding to the current flow node;
in response to detecting that association role information or visual node information in the node attribute information is modified, determining a to-be-deleted flow node associated with the current flow node;
updating the workflow based on the to-be-deleted flow node, wherein the to-be-deleted flow node is determined automatically based on detecting that the association role information or the visual node information in the node attribute information is modified; and
in response to detecting that a target control is triggered, using the updated workflow as a target workflow.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion1, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations cover the selection and updating of pre-existing workflows, by a user determining that a trigger occurred, comparing / analyzing data and updating information, which is a mental process. It is further noted that the limitation of displaying node attribute information corresponding to the current flow node can also be considered a mental step, as the CAFC has held that “merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis”. See Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. 1 August 2016).
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. In respect to claim independent claim 1, the claim recites acquiring a to-be-used execution project flow, wherein the to-be-used execution project flow comprises a plurality of to-be-used flow nodes, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a type of insignificant extra-solution activity2; and an electronic device in the preamble, however this is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the steps. In respect to independent claim 8, it recites additional elements of least one processor and at least one
memory having execution instructions stored thereon, however these are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the steps; independent claim 15 recites additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, however this is additionally recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component3.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. 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 or 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
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, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 3 – 7:
Claim 3 merely recites comparing information in fields to make a determination;
Claim 4 merely recites deleting a node based on user input;
Claim 5 merely recites updating information based on a change of information in a node;
Claim 6 merely recites deleting a node based on user input changing node information;
Claim 7 merely defines the content of information.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry4 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0094]-[0109], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation5.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Minder; Kevin A. et al. US 20140052488 A1 Contextual Task Management And Notifications
Yano; Keisuke et al. US 20090076877 A1 Program, method and apparatus for modeling Workflow
Deshpande; Deepak Arun et al. US 20130054299 A1 User Interface For Dynamic Workflow State Management
Meliksetian; Dikran S. et al. US 20100010953 A1 Method and Apparatus for Generating Context-Aware Generic Workflow Applications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
2 See MPEP 2106.05(g).
3See MPEP 2106.05(f).
4 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
5 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).