DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 114/18/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 and similar independent claims 12 and 17 recite "wherein the efficacy is indicative of a likelihood of completing the step of the workflow." However, this limitation is vague and unclear because it is not clear how " a likelihood of completing the step of the workflow " is decided.
Claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 mirror the deficiencies of the claims upon which
they depend and are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claims 12 and 17 is similar to that of claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites:
A method, the method comprising:
providing, by a processor and to an electronic device, an application component executable at the electronic device to perform a step of a workflow;
receiving, by the processor, from the electronic device, and via the application component, data provided in response to a request for information;
determining, by the processor, that the data satisfies the request for information;
determining, by the processor, and based on determining that the data satisfies the request, an efficacy of the application component, wherein the efficacy is indicative of a likelihood of completing the step of the workflow; and
modifying, by the processor, and based on the efficacy, the workflow, wherein modifying the workflow increases the likelihood of completing the step of the workflow.
Step 1:
The claim falls within a statutory category of being a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claim recites limitations of:
determining that the data satisfies the request for information;
determining, and based on determining that the data satisfies the request, an efficacy of the application component, wherein the efficacy is indicative of a likelihood of completing the step of the workflow; and
modifying, and based on the efficacy, the workflow, wherein modifying the workflow increases the likelihood of completing the step of the workflow;
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim
elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and
paper, i.e. “determining”, and “modifying” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. For example,
“modifying the workflow” can be performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper
by modifying a flowchart. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A- Prong 2:
The additional elements of “providing, by a processor and to an electronic device, an application component executable at the electronic device to perform a step of a workflow”, and “by the processor,” as recited in claims 1, 12, and 17, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a non-transitory program memory operably connected to the processor and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, as recited in claim 12, and the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that, when executed, cause a computing device to”, as recited in claim 13, all recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Also, the additional elements of “receiving, by the processor, from the electronic device, and via the application component, data provided in response to a request for information” as recited in claim 1 and “receiving, from the electronic device, and via the application component, data provided in response to a request for information”, as recited in claims 12 and 17, merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “providing, by a processor and to an electronic device, an application component executable at the electronic device to perform a step of a workflow”, and “by the processor,” as recited in claims 1, 12, and 17, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a non-transitory program memory operably connected to the processor and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, as recited in claim 12, and the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that, when executed, cause a computing device to”, as recited in claim 13, merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, transmitting, and receiving data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in the limitations of “receiving, by the processor, from the electronic device, and via the application component, data provided in response to a request for information” as recited in claim 1 and “receiving, from the electronic device, and via the application component, data provided in response to a request for information”, as recited in claims 12 and 17, and thus these limitations do not amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of
the additional elements recite an inventive concept and the claimed invention is patent
ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, claim 2 recites “modifying, by the processor and based at least in part on the efficacy, a first profile associated with at least one of the electronic device or a user of the electronic device; determining, by the processor, that a characteristic of the first profile matches a corresponding characteristic of a second profile associated with an additional user; and based on the first profile matching the corresponding characteristic of the second profile, modifying, by the processor, the second profile, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “by the processor” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 3 recites “wherein modifying the workflow comprises at least one of: adding a new step, removing the step, modifying of an order of steps in the workflow, or modifying a dependency between at least two steps in the workflow, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 4 recites “wherein the application component includes a prompt requesting the information, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data, “and the efficacy is determined based on: a time to respond to the prompt, or validity of data received in response to the prompt” also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 5 recites “wherein the workflow is a first workflow and modifying the workflow comprises modifying the application component, the method further comprising: identifying, by the processor, a second workflow including the application component; and modifying, by the processor and based on the efficacy, the second workflow”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above and “by the processor” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 6 recites “wherein the step is a first step and the efficacy is a first efficacy, the method further comprising: determining, by the processor, a second efficacy associated with a second step of the workflow; and determining, by the processor and based at least in part on the first efficacy and the second efficacy, an overall efficacy of the workflow”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “by the processor” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 7 recites “wherein the workflow is modified based at least in part on an output of a machine learning algorithm, the machine learning algorithm being trained using training data including prior interactions with application components provided to perform the step of the workflow”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “a machine learning algorithm, the machine learning algorithm being trained using training data including prior interactions with application components provided to perform the step of the workflow” merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites “ modifying, by the processor and based on the efficacy, a profile associated a user of the electronic device”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “providing, by the processor, the modified workflow to an additional electronic device, different from the electronic device, associated with the profile” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 9 recites “wherein the efficacy is determined based at least in part on a survey indicative of user satisfaction received from the electronic device”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 10 recites “wherein the step is associated with a plurality of application components, the method further comprising: identifying, by the processor and based on a type of the electronic device, the application component from the plurality of application components.”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “by the processor” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 11 recites “wherein the plurality of application components includes one or more of: a web form, a text message to be transmitted to the electronic device, or a voice interaction with the electronic device”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 13 recites “ modifying, based on the efficacy, a profile associated with at least one of the electronic device or a user of the electronic device”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “and providing the modified workflow to an additional electronic device, different from the electronic device, associated with the profile” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 14 recites “receiving at least one of imaging data or audio data captured from the electronic device”, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data, and “performing at least one of a facial analysis based on the imaging data, or a voice analysis based on the audio data, wherein the efficacy is further based on the facial analysis or the voice analysis”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 15 recites “wherein the workflow is a first workflow and modifying the workflow comprises modifying the application component, the operations further comprising: identifying a second workflow including the application component; and modifying, based on the efficacy, the second workflow”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 16 recites “wherein the step is associated with a plurality of application components, the operations further comprising: identifying, based on a type of the electronic device, the application component from the plurality of application components”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “wherein the plurality of application components includes one or more of: a web form, a text message to be transmitted to the electronic device, or a voice interaction with the electronic device” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 18 recites “wherein the application component includes a prompt requesting the information, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data, “and the instructions further cause the computing device to: determine an indication of a time to respond to the prompt, wherein the efficacy is determined based on the time to respond” also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above. In addition, “the instructions” and “the computer device” merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 19 recites “wherein modifying the workflow comprises at least one of: adding a new step, removing the step, modifying of an order of steps in the workflow, or modifying a dependency between at least two steps in the workflow, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 20 recites “wherein the workflow is modified based at least in part on an output of a machine learning algorithm”, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above, and “a machine learning algorithm” merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Badawy et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0113500 A1) discloses a business system that may have multiple different layers of customization, where an integrated view is generated for a model element being customized and the integrated view shows an integrated visualization of the model element in the base system as well as a plurality of different extensions to the model element. Kaur et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0052665 A1) discloses dynamically generating user interface (UI) templates and web applications using database procedures associated with databases such as an in-memory database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights