DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 26 Dec 2024.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional applications: US 62540433 filed 8/2/2017; US 62613561 filed 1/4/2018; and US 62642818 filed 3/14/18; and as a CON of US 16046380 filed 7/26/2018 (US PAT 12217309) have been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 (original application claims 21-40) of U.S. Patent No. 12217309. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite substantially similar subject matter (including recited elements).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, 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.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of associating event records related to workflow . In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process. Claims 17-20 are directed to a system. Claims 11-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Associating event records related to workflow (i.e. data processing) is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity) [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
1. A …method for associating event records related to a workflow, the method comprising:
capturing, …, and in a first … having a first format, first event information, the first event information indicating a first interaction between the … and a first…;
extracting, … and from the first …, first values characterizing the first interaction;
generating, …, a first event record including: the first values formatted according to a first …, and …indicating the first source application;
capturing, … and in a second … having a second format different from the first format, second values characterizing a second interaction between the processor and a second source application;
generating, … a second event record including the second values formatted according to the first data structure; and
determining, …, an association between the first event record and the second event record.
11. A …… for associating event records related to a workflow that, when executed by at least one …, causes the … to:
capture, in a first file having a first format, first event information indicative of a first interaction between the …and a first …
extract, from the first …, first values characterizing the first interaction;
generate a first event record including: the first values formatted according to a first …, and metadata indicating the first …;
capture, in a second file having a second format different from the first format, second values characterizing a second interaction between the … and a second …;
generate a second event record including the second values formatted according to the first …; and
determine an association between the first event record and the second event record.
17. A … configured to associate event records related to a workflow, the … comprising: … comprising:
capturing, in a first … having a first format, first event information indicative of a first interaction between the computer system and a first source application;
extracting, from the first …, first values characterizing the first interaction; generating a first event record including: the first values formatted according to a first data structure, and metadata indicating the first source application;
capturing, in a second … having a second format different from the first format, second values characterizing a second interaction between the computer system and a second source application;
generating a second event record including the second values formatted according to the first …; and
determining an association between the first event record and the second event record.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of capturing…, extracting…, generating…, capturing… , generating… determining…do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. storing…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process. Claims 17-20 are directed to a system. Claims 11-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: ( computer-implemented… processor…source application… file…computer readable medium… ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [0010] computing device may include one or more processing elements, transceivers, and/or memory elements [0120] computer system…processors, sensors, transceivers, and/or servers… [0127] “processing element” or equivalents… general purpose processor… [0128] computer hardware components …[0129] … processing elements... )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-10, 12-16, 18-20) introduces the additional elements of: wherein clauses further describing elements such as: data field/field type (Claim 2)… format… (Claim 3)…type of communication channel… metadata… (Claim 4)… event type.. (Claims 7, 13)…event record…(Claim 8); … format…metadata… (Claim 14, 18)…type of communication channel… (Claim 15) …type of communication channel…event… (Claim 19).and wherein clauses further describing steps: determining …(Claim 5); … assigning… augmenting… assigning… augmenting… (Claims 6, 12,); ….generating… wherein …event… storing.. (Claim 9); …providing.. determining.. outputting… (Claim 10)…providing…. output… (Claim 16)… assigning… augmenting… wherein the event type… (Claim 20). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because, ).the element(s) amount(s) to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [0010] computing device may include one or more processing elements, transceivers, and/or memory elements [0120] computer system…processors, sensors, transceivers, and/or servers… [0127] “processing element” or equivalents… general purpose processor… [0128] computer hardware components …[0129] … processing elements... )
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130204645 A1, Lehman et al. hereinafter referred to as Lehman.
Claims 1, 11, and 17
Lehman discloses a computer-implemented method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system for associating event records related to a workflow, the method comprising:
capturing, via a processor, and in a first file having a first format, first event information, the first event information indicating a first interaction between the processor and a first source application; (See at least Lehman,
Fig. 11, Register; [40-41] insurance shopping client gathering… harvest data…))
….
generating, via the processor, a first event record including: the first values formatted according to a first data structure, and metadata indicating the first source application; (See at least Lehman, [0038] payload, header or metadata)
capturing, via the processor, and in a second file having a second format different from the first format, second values characterizing a second interaction between the processor and a second source application; (See at least Lehman, [51] gathering objects may gather information or supplement the information…claim…capture claim information)
generating, via the processor, a second event record including the second values formatted according to the first data structure; and (See at least Lehman, Fig. 5-6, [51-52] menu driven fact gathering process…)
determining, via the processor, an association between the first event record and the second event record. (See at least Lehman, [0038] payload, header or metadata [45] quote delivered… documents… converted)
Lehman does not directly disclose:
….extracting… data
However, Lehman does teach the “gathering of information” and also the extraction of the image data and user identifying information from image data… (See at least, Lehman, [48], Claims 35 and 48)
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to use an extraction technique to gather information. Therefore, Lehman renders obvious the step of:
extracting, via the processor and from the first file, first values characterizing the first interaction; (See at least Lehman, Fig. 11, register…email, VIN , [41]gather information needed to process quotes… [48] policy number)
Claim 2
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein: the first values are extracted from a first data field of the first file having a first data field type, the second values are extracted from a second data field of the second file having the first data field type, the first event record indicates the first data field type in association with the first values, and the second event record indicates the first data field type in association with the second values. (See at least Lehman, [33] transmission and reception of any type or combination of information including data, video and audio … [38] synchronization objects… metadata)
Claim 3
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein the first format of the first file is based upon a type of communication channel used for the first interaction, and the second format is based upon a type of communication channel used for the second interaction. (See at least Lehman, [33] transmission and reception of any type or combination of information including data, video and audio … [38] synchronization objects… metadata)
Claim 4
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 3.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein: the type of communication channel comprises one of: telephone, mail, email, text, web interface, mobile app, or online chat, and the metadata further comprises an indication of the type of communication channel. (See Lehman, [2] mobile architecture… mobile application…[38] synchronization objects… metadata)
Claim 5
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Lehman further discloses:
determining, via the processor, an event type associated with the first interaction, wherein the event type is based upon one or more of: a change in data occurring during the first interaction, detection of a known event type, correlation rules, or a result of testing the workflow. (See at least Lehman, [66] vehicle event or mobile device event….event occurs… device may transmit…)
Claims 6 and 12
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 5 and 11.
Lehman further discloses:
assigning, via the processor, a first unique identifier to the first event record, the first unique identifier indicating a first event type; (See at least Lehman, Fig. 11, register…email, VIN , [48] policy number)
augmenting, via the processor, the first event record to include metadata indicating the first unique identifier; (See at least Lehman, [33] transmission and reception of any type or combination of information including data, video and audio … [38] synchronization objects… metadata)
assigning, via the processor, a second unique identifier to the second event record, the second unique identifier indicating a second event type; and (See at least Lehman, Fig. 11, register…email, VIN , [48] policy number)
augmenting, via the processor, the second event record to include metadata indicating the second unique identifier. (See at least Lehman, [33] transmission and reception of any type or combination of information including data, video and audio … [38] synchronization objects… metadata)
Claims 7 and 13
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 6 and 12.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein the first event type or the second event type comprises one of: a transaction, an agreement, a change in customer information, a customer life event, or a price calculation. (See at least Lehman, [41] gather information needed to process quotes…[45] quote delivered… documents… converted[51] gathering objects may gather information or supplement the information…claim…capture claim information…)
Claim 8
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein the first event record and the second event record each comprise an extensible markup language (XML) file. (See at least Lehman, [45]XML)
Claim 9
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein the first interaction is associated with a first workflow, the method further comprising:
generating, via the processor, a third event record corresponding to an interaction with a step of a second workflow, different from the first workflow, wherein the third event record includes third values formatted according to the first data structure; and (See at least Lehman, [41] gather information needed to process quotes…[45] quote delivered… documents… converted[51] gathering objects may gather information or supplement the information…claim…capture claim information…)
storing, via the processor, the first event record, the second event record, and the third event record in a database. (See at least Lehman, Fig. 1 [60] monitor and store…)
Claim 10 and 16
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Lehman further discloses:
determining the association further comprises:
providing, via the processor and as inputs to…., the first event record and the second event record; (See at least Lehman, Fig. 5-6, [51-52] menu driven fact gathering process…)
determining, via the processor and as output … a pattern based at least in part on the inputs; and (See at least Lehman, Fig. 5-6, [51-52] menu driven fact gathering process…capture relevant data… data collected allow the claims application client to carry out initial checks, trigger automated or manual follow-up processors)
outputting, via the processor and in a report associated with the workflow, the determined pattern. (See at least Lehman, Fig. 5-6, [51-52] menu driven fact gathering process…capture relevant data… data collected allow the claims application client to carry out initial checks, trigger automated or manual follow-up processors…and report notice of losses through letters… )
Lehman does not directly disclose:
a machine learning algorithm
However, one of ordinary skill in the art of at the time of filing would find it obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. (MPEP 2144.06)
Claims 14 and 18
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 11 and 17.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein: the first format associated with the first file is based upon a type of communication channel used for the first interaction, and the metadata further comprises an indication of the type of communication channel. (See Lehman, [2] mobile architecture… mobile application…[38] synchronization objects… metadata)
Claim 15
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 14.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein the type of communication channel comprises one of: telephone, mail, email, text, web interface, mobile app, or online chat. (See Lehman, [2] mobile architecture… mobile application)
Claim 19
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 18.
Lehman further discloses:
wherein: the type of communication channel comprises one of: telephone, mail, email, text, web interface, mobile app, or online chat, and the first event record and the second event record each comprise an extensible markup language (XML) file. (See at least Lehman, [2] mobile architecture… mobile application…[38] synchronization objects… metadata [45]XML)
Claim 20
Lehman discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 17.
Lehman further discloses:
assigning a first unique identifier to the first event record, the first unique identifier indicating an event type; and (See at least Lehman, Fig. 11, register…email, VIN , [48] policy number)
augmenting the first event record to include metadata indicating the first unique identifier, wherein the event type comprises one of: a transaction, an agreement, a change in customer information, a customer life event, or a price calculation.
(See at least Lehman, [33] transmission and reception of any type or combination of information including data, video and audio … [38] synchronization objects… metadata)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691