DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 04/16/2026, Applicant, on 06/26/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 15, and 19-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending following this response.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the Examiner.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees (Applicant’s arguments pages 10-11).
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Further, the additional elements in the claims (computer implemented) does not improve any existing technology. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract concept of organizing and managing information (specifically, storing data templates and retrieving them upon request for reuse). Steps of receiving, storing, retrieving, and providing data definitions are classic computational placeholders for conventional data manipulation. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of determining risk priorities for cross-bore is accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea. The claims describe a business or software logic tool ("reusable flow triggers") rather than an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself (like a faster operating system, a new type of memory encryption, or an optimized network protocol). and that there is no inventive concept in the present claims.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102/103
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees (Applicant’s arguments pages 10-11).
The Examiner introduced the reference Eldan which explicitly teaches the amended limitations to claim 1 (see 35 USC § 103 rejection below). Applicant’s arguments in this regard are moot.
As a result, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 in the present office action.
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. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of receiving a request, retrieving reusable definition of a flow trigger from persistent storage and providing the reusable definition of the flow trigger for integration into the instruction flow. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract concept of organizing and managing information (specifically, storing data templates and retrieving them upon request for reuse).
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “receiving, prior to execution of an instruction flow, a reusable definition of a flow trigger, wherein the reusable definition specifies one or more conditions that, when met, cause activation of the flow trigger; storing the reusable definition of the flow trigger in persistent storage; receiving a request to integrate the flow trigger into the instruction flow; and based on receiving the request, retrieving the reusable definition of the flow trigger from persistent storage and providing the reusable definition of the flow trigger for integration into the instruction flow”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for receiving a request, retrieving reusable definition of a flow trigger from persistent storage and providing the reusable definition of the flow trigger for integration into the instruction flow. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 19 and 20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-18 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for receiving a request, retrieving reusable definition of a flow trigger from persistent storage and providing the reusable definition of the flow trigger for integration into the instruction flow. As a result, claims 2-18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, steps of receiving, storing, retrieving, and providing data definitions are classic computational placeholders for conventional data manipulation. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. The claim describes a business or software logic tool ("reusable flow triggers") rather than an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself (like a faster operating system, a new type of memory encryption, or an optimized network protocol). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 19 further recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and claim 20 further recites “a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 19 and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 19, and 20. As a result, claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”. The steps of “receiving” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. The additional limitations in the independent and dependent claims do not add anything "significantly more" than generic, conventional computer functions. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 19 further recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and claim 20 further recites “a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 19 and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 19, and 20. As a result, claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Lipke et al. (US 20200042330 A1) in view of Eldan et al. (US 12169802 B1).
Regarding claim 1. Lipke teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: [Lipke, claim 1, Lipke teaches “A method performed by a system having at least a processor and a memory therein”]
Lipke does not specifically teach, however, Eldan teaches receiving, prior to execution of an instruction flow, a reusable definition of a flow trigger, wherein the reusable definition specifies one or more conditions that, when met, cause activation of the flow trigger; [Eldan, claim1, Eldan teaches “enabling placement of a switch block on the canvas at a downstream position of the at least one workflow block, and placement of a plurality of additional workflow blocks at locations downstream of the switch block and arranged in a plurality of alternative downstream branches; wherein the switch block is configured to direct trigger action flow to at least one of the plurality of alternative downstream branches; and wherein the switch block is automatically configured with a plurality of differing queries by a template, a configuration option, or an intelligent system and the plurality of differing queries being associated with the plurality of alternative downstream branches, at least one of the plurality of differing queries being associated with the at least one of the plurality of data sources” wherein enabling placement of a switch block on the canvas at a downstream position of the at least one workflow block is equivalent to receiving, prior to execution of an instruction flow, a reusable definition of a flow trigger and wherein the switch block is configured to direct trigger action flow to at least one of the plurality of alternative downstream branches is equivalent to conditions that activate workflow trigger]
Lipke teaches implementing dynamic creation of an external code segment within a cloud-based computing environment and Eldan teaches workflow management systems. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing workflow execution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Lipke to incorporate the teaching of Eldan by receiving, prior to execution of an instruction flow, a reusable definition of a flow trigger, wherein the reusable definition specifies one or more conditions that, when met, cause activation of the flow trigger. The motivation to combine Lipke with Adi has the advantage of ensuring data integrity, managing updates and upgrades, and promptly addressing any issues or bugs that may arise.
Further, Lipke teaches storing the reusable definition of the flow trigger in persistent storage; ; [Lipke, claim2, Lipke teaches “create a named external segment of software instructions by binding the received value as the name of the external segment of software instructions; and create an instance of the named external segment of software instructions responsive to binding the received value as the name of the external segment of software instructions” wherein create a named external segment of software instructions and wherein a name of the external segment of software instructions is to be first received as in claim 1 indicate that the name/reusable definition is being stored] receiving a request to integrate the flow trigger into an instruction flow; and based on receiving the request, retrieving the reusable definition of the flow trigger from persistent storage and providing the reusable definition of the flow trigger for integration into the instruction flow [Lipke, claim1, Lipke teaches “wherein a name of the external segment of software instructions is to be first received during runtime of the object code” wherein receive a name/reusable definition first to execute a workflow].
Regarding claim 2. Lipke in view of Eldan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Lipke teaches further comprising: generating a representation of a user interface configured to provide for definition of flow triggers, wherein the reusable definition of the flow trigger is received by way of the user interface [Lipke, claim 1, Lipke teaches “a name of the external segment of software instructions is to be first received during runtime of the object code” wherein receiving a name first before triggering a workflow. Further, Lipke teaches in para. 0029 “In accordance with one embodiment, database system 130 utilizes the underlying database system implementations 155A and 155B to service database queries and other data interactions with the database system 130 which communicate with the database system 130 via the query interface” wherein a query or a reusable definition is received via a user interface].
Regarding claim 3. Lipke in view of Eldan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Lipke teaches wherein the reusable definition of the flow trigger is flow-independent and allows for integration of the flow trigger into a plurality of different instruction flows [Lipke, Abstract, Lipke teaches “an exemplary system having at least a processor and a memory therein includes means for executing object code comprising software instructions that when executed create an instance of an external segment of software instructions that is to perform business logic, wherein a name of the external segment of software instructions is to be first received during runtime of the object code” wherein receive a name/reusable definition first to execute a workflow is an indication that the name is flow independent].
Regarding claim 5. Lipke in view of Eldan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Lipke teaches wherein the reusable definition of the flow trigger comprises a flow trigger template populated by one or more values that specify a behavior of the flow trigger [Lipke, claim2, Lipke teaches “create a named external segment of software instructions by binding the received value as the name of the external segment of software instructions” wherein binding the received value as the name of the external segment of software instructions is equivalent to one or more values that specify a behavior of the flow trigger].
Regarding claim 6. Lipke in view of Eldan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Lipke teaches wherein, when the flow trigger is integrated into the instruction flow, the flow trigger is configured to trigger execution of one or more instructions in the instruction flow when the one or more condition defined by the flow trigger is met [Lipke, para. 0030, Lipke teaches “or such queries may be constructed from the inputs and other requests 115 for execution against the databases 155 or the query interface 180, pursuant to which results 116 are then returned to an originator or requestor, such as a user of one of a user client device 106A-C at a customer organization 105A-C” wherein the query is equivalent to a trigger. Further, in claim3, Lipke teaches “further comprising receiving a class including software instructions that when executed create the instance of the named external segment of software instructions that is to perform business logic” wherein trigger execution of instructions].
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Lipke claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 20 is directed to a system which is anticipated by Lipke claim 1.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Lipke in view of Adi et al. (US 20100106547 A1).
Regarding claim 16. Lipke in view of Eldan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Lipke in view of Eldan does not specifically teach, however; Adi teaches wherein the reusable definition of the flow trigger indicates whether the flow trigger is modifiable when the flow trigger is presented by way of a user interface used for defining the instruction flow [Adi, para. 0028, Adi teaches “the presence of broken lines around some graphical user interface elements 46 indicates that the elements are not editable” wherein indication on UI whether the reusable element is modifiable].
Lipke teaches implementing dynamic creation of an external code segment within a cloud-based computing environment and Adi teaches a computer-implemented method for generating a workflow. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing workflow execution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Lipke in view of Eldan to incorporate the teaching of Adi by indicating on a user interface whether a flow trigger is modifiable. The motivation to combine Lipke in view of Eldan with Adi has the advantage of supporting rapid development of a workflow using a graphical user interface.
Regarding claim 17. Lipke in view of Eldan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Lipke in view of Eldan does not specifically teach, however; Adi teaches wherein the instruction flow is configured to be executed by a first computing system, and wherein the flow trigger specifies an event associated with a second computing system that is different from the first computing system [Adi, para. 0028, Adi teaches “Operator 30 may accept the default second document 52 or may define an additional user interface element 54. In the present example, additional user interface element 54 comprises a field for the librarian to input a textual description of his response to the request” wherein indication on UI whether the reusable element is modifiable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Lipke in view of Eldan to incorporate the teaching of Adi by providing two computer systems. The motivation to combine Lipke in view of Eldan with Adi has the advantage of supporting rapid development of a workflow using a graphical user interface.
Regarding claim 18. Lipke in view of Eldan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Lipke in view of Eldan does not specifically teach, however; Adi teaches wherein the first computing system comprises one or more of a remote network management platform or a managed network, and wherein the second computing system comprises a third-party computing system [Adi, para. 0028, Adi teaches “Operator 30 may accept the default second document 52 or may define an additional user interface element 54. In the present example, additional user interface element 54 comprises a field for the librarian to input a textual description of his response to the request” wherein the librarian is equivalent to a third party].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Lipke in view of Eldan to incorporate the teaching of Adi by providing two computer systems one of which is a third party. The motivation to combine Lipke in view of Eldan with Adi has the advantage of supporting rapid development of a workflow using a graphical user interface.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nayak et al. (US 20220229636 A1) teaches modify the workflow template to create the custom workflow, wherein the modification is at least one of a change at least one of the multiple actions or adding an auto-configured user defined action to the workflow template; and add the custom workflow to the multiple workflow templates included in the template library.
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 02/21/2022 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights