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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 01/07/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7 ad 13 recites “two or more actitivites”, it should be “two or more activities”. Appropriate correction is 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-6 are directed to a system (machine), claims 7-12 are directed to a method (process) and claims 13-18 are directed to a computer program. Examiner note that the computer program product is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se in view of applicant specification ¶[0662]. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-18 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 7, and 13 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A system to capture data and material changes in a process flow model, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a storage device, wherein the processor executes application code instructions that are stored in the storage device to cause the system to:
tag data selected from at least one of existing data, material catalog elements or data catalog elements from an existing data catalog;
identify the tagged data as at least one input or at least one output specific to at least one activity or event;
associate the at least one input and at least one output to two or more actitivites or events;
receive data from a user based on the association of the at least one input and at least one output;
transmit the received data to a process model application; and
generate, by the process model application, information on attributes relating to the at least one activity or event, based on the transmitted data.
The Applicant's Specification titled "CAPTURING DATA AND MATERIAL CHANGES FOR PROCESS FLOW MODELS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to tagging data to generate information on attributes relating to at least one activity or event " (Spec. fig. 3).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 13 are recites the abstract idea of tagging data to generate information on attributes relating to at least one activity or event. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution tagging data to generate information on attributes relating to at least one activity or event. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Certain methods of 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);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claims 8 and 14) wherein the at least one input and the at least one output are associated upon creation of the at least one activity or event in the system.
claim 3 (Similarly claims 8 and 14) wherein the at least one input and the at least one output are associated at a time after creation of the at least one activity or event in the system.
claim 4 (Similarly claims 8 and 14) wherein the data received by the user comprises at least one attribute related to the at least one activity or event.
claim 5 (Similarly claims 8 and 14) wherein the at least one attribute is at least one of association and transfer method type, association and transfer time, and other attributes.
claim 6 (Similarly claims 8 and 14) wherein generating, by the process model application, comprises calculating an amount of time the at least one activity or event will take to complete.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 7 and 13.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-18 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 7 and 13 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A system, a process flow model, a processor, a storage devices and a process model application
Claim 7. A computer program product, a non-transitory storage device, a computer, a process flow implementation specification, and a process model application
Claim 13. A process flow model, a computing device, and a process model application
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 7 and 13 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of A system, a process flow model, a processor, a storage devices and a process model application, computer program product, a non-transitory storage device, a computer, a process flow implementation specification which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 7 and 13 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for tagging data to generate information on attributes relating to at least one activity or event and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention tagging data to generate information on attributes relating to at least one activity or event. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7 and 13 but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7 and 13. furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 7 and 13 include a system, a process flow model, a processor, a storage devices and a process model application, computer program product, a non-transitory storage device, a computer, a process flow implementation specification. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to tagging data to generate information on attributes relating to at least one activity or event.
Claims 1-18 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Visnovec et al. US 2016/0307125 (hereinafter Visnovec).
Regarding Claim 1:
A system to capture data and material changes in a process flow model, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a storage device, wherein the processor executes application code instructions that are stored in the storage device to cause the system to: (see Visnovec [0131])
tag data selected from at least one of existing data, material catalog elements or data catalog elements from an existing data catalog; (Visnovec abstract [0040], “each step is linked to one or more relevant document … interacting with the process flow checklist, returning to the checklist to move to other steps and documents relevant” [0048-0053], “an importation of goods scenario … the user may double click to assign documents from the available list, or to create new”.)
identify the tagged data as at least one input or at least one output specific to at least one activity or event; (Visnovec [0114], [0124], “an activity (task) constrain can be defined to prevent skipping of particular steps”. Visnovec [0129-0130], “the user can reference an Activity step in a Process Checklist instance, thus "delegating" some activity. .. assignment of an "owner" to a particular process. Thus a user can assign an owner to a process checklist instance.”.)
associate the at least one input and at least one output to two or more actitivites or events; (Visnovec abstract [00130], “the assignment of an "owner" to a particular process. Thus a user can assign an owner to a process checklist instance. This assignment may be done per customer, for example, or per type of flow via activities on header of process instance”.)
receive data from a user based on the association of the at least one input and at least one output; (Visnovec [0124], “an activity (task) constrain can be defined to prevent skipping of particular steps”. [0129-0130], “the user can reference an activity steps in a process checklist instance, thus delegating some activities … the user can assign an owner to a process checklist instance … type of flow via activities”. Also, see [0128])
transmit the received data to a process model application; and (Visnovec [0123], a process checklist modeling and visualization”. [0129-0131], “semi-automatic behavior may be implemented according to embodiments. For example, using standard SAP BUSINESS ONE activities, the user can reference an Activity step in a Process Checklist instance, thus "delegating" some activity. Upon completion of the activity, the process step can indicate possibility of completing the process task … to a process flow model”. Also, see [0061])
generate, by the process model application, information on attributes relating to the at least one activity or event, based on the transmitted data. (Visnovec [0064], “BPMN process modeling for describing customer process and using extension elements to implement process checklist”. [0123-0124], “process checklist modeling and visualization … text annotation element … an activity (task) constraint can be defined”. Also, see [0055], [0129-0130] figure 1b and figure 2)
Regarding Claim 2:
Visnovec disclose the system of claim 1,
Visnovec further teach wherein the at least one input and the at least one output are associated upon creation of the at least one activity or event in the system. (Visnovec [0124-0130], “offer a user comments and/or hints. Process definers and users can take advantage of BPMN Text Annotation element in order to create textual comments and hints to aid users using the given process template…. blocking addition of new documents that do not match constraints on base document, related business partner, etc. An activity (task) constraint can be defined to prevent skipping of particular steps. Constraints can be visualized (EN: output) or hidden in order not to distort the larger picture”.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Visnovec disclose the system of claim 1,
Visnovec further teach wherein the at least one input and the at least one output are associated at a time after creation of the at least one activity or event in the system. (Visnovec [0058-0060], “steps are organized in the time order from the start to the end of the process in the planned chronological order. This example is slightly more complex than that given in FIG. 2, in that the process flow includes a decision point and a corresponding branch. …. The expected time order of execution of the steps”.)
Regarding Claim 4:
Visnovec disclose the system of claim 1,
Visnovec further teach wherein the data received by the user comprises at least one attribute related to the at least one activity or event. (referring back to applicant specification with regard to attribute, in [0082] and different paragraphs, “the attribute … may contain any information”. Visnovec [0124-0130], “an activity constraint can be defined to prevent skipping of particular steps (EN: attribute) … the user can reference an activity in a process checklist … a user can assign an owner to a process … or per type of flow via activities on header of process (EN: attribute)”.)
Regarding Claim 5:
Visnovec disclose the system of claim 4,
Visnovec further teach wherein the at least one attribute is at least one of association and transfer method type, association and transfer time, and other attributes. (referring back to applicant specification with regard to attribute, in [0082] and different paragraphs, “the attribute … may contain any information”. Visnovec [0124-0130], “an activity constraint can be defined to prevent skipping of particular steps (EN: attribute) … the user can reference an activity in a process checklist … a user can assign an owner to a process … or per type of flow via activities on header of process (EN: attribute)”. Also, see [0099-0100], “type that can be associated with the element … possible document associated with the element”.)
Regarding Claim 6:
Visnovec disclose the system of claim 1,
Visnovec further teach wherein generating, by the process model application, comprises calculating an amount of time the at least one activity or event will take to complete. (Visnovec [0109-0110], “such possible feature is generation and display of a process report. In particular a simple list of process instances for a given user, with percentage of completion or estimated count of steps ("tasks ahead"), can be displayed … calculated using different metric … extension tag”. [0113-121], “progress calculation”. Also, see [0058], [0060])
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 is the computer program claim corresponding to the system claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 is the computer program claim corresponding to the system claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the computer program claim corresponding to the system claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the computer program claim corresponding to the system claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the computer program claim corresponding to the system claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the computer program claim corresponding to the system claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abdel-Gayed, Ahmed, et al. Implementing an Advanced Application Using Processes, Rules, Events, and Reports. IBM Redbooks, 2012.
Alasgarov, Emin. "Log-based generation of event labels using event attributes." (2016).
Cosenza et al. US 2023/0394407: Systems and methods for state management and workflow completion.
Reil et al. US 2023/0269206: Systems and methods for intelligent delivery of communications.
Kumar CA 3238776: Intelligence driven method and system for multi-factor optimization of schedules and resource recommendations for smart construction.
Abitbol et al. US 2021/0036974: Generating process flow models using unstructured conversation bots.
Amthor WO 2020/254203: Role-specific process compliance alert system.
Bursey US 2020/0342511: Bundling of automated work flow.
Hasija et al. US 2018/0218295: Engine for modeling and executing custom business processes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624