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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are new claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-10,12-16 and 18-23 are pending.
Applicant filed information disclosure statement.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 16
None of these limitations recites a fundamental economic principle, a commercial or legal interaction, or the management of human behavior or relationships between people. The "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping covers concepts such as fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant is using limitations such as "instantiating, by a computer, a current instance of a workflow on a host system" to prove that the claimed limitation does not fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, however the computer and host system are treated as additional elements. Additional elements are not part of step 2A prong 1. Step 2a prong 1 deals with identifying an abstract idea. For example, instantiating a workflow is merely creating a workflow which does not require a computer or host system. The claimed invention recites limitations such as workflows and comparing those workflows with respect to directed graphs. This clearly teaches managing workflows. In addition, these workflows are for companies trying to accomplish their goals (See para 0002 in the Applicant’s specification). This clearly makes the claimed invention fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations).
Applicant argues on page 17
The "receiving" limitation requires that the computer receive "via a step signaling application programming interface, a step signal as each step of a plurality of steps executes in a step sequence of the current executing instance of the workflow from the host system." This is a machine-to-machine signal event delivered through a software API as each step executes on the host system. It is not retrievable by human observation or performable in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant uses additional elements such as application programming interface and computer. Additional elements are not part of step 2A prong 1 where an abstract idea is identified. Receiving information regarding steps in a workflow is merely receiving information. The application programming interface, host system, and step signaling application programming interface are mere additional elements that are used to carry out this abstract idea step. The further steps of recording, determining, and performing a comparison are also abstract idea steps that do not require a computer.
Applicant argues on page 19
The specification explicitly identifies the technical problem the claimed invention addresses: "existing workflow monitoring solutions ... do not have sufficient interfaces for monitoring workflow execution and alerting to initiate workflow recovery actions for workflows that are implemented in a variety of forms and utilize various underlying technologies." Spec. para [0052]. The technical context is described at Spec.para [0043]-[0047]: large, diverse computing environments in which multiple workflows execute simultaneously across host systems using various underlying technologies - sequential workflows, state machine workflows, and others - where the absence of sufficient monitoring interfaces makes timely detection of failures and variant behaviors technically difficult.
The technical problem is in paragraphs [0043]-[0052]: a deficiency in computer-system monitoring interfaces. A deficiency in software interfaces is a technical problem.
These claim limitations constitute a specific improvement to workflow management technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant clearly recites the business problem of workflow monitoring and management. This improvement of workflow monitoring is nested in the abstract idea of a mental process. Improving the mental process step of monitoring is not a technical improvement nor deals with a technical problem. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. Examiner advises Applicant to make the claims more technical in nature to address the problem of interfaces as claimed by the Applicant.
Applicant argues on page 21-22 that the claims are analogous to Desjardins
Examiner respectfully disagrees
In Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity. In contrast, the claimed invention here does not address or solve a technical problem but rather the business problem of workflow monitoring and management. In addition, Desjardin dealt with machine learning and the Applicant’s claimed invention does not.
Applicant argues on page 24
Under MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the examiner bears the burden of demonstrating, with evidence, that the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The examiner has not made this showing for the specific combination of elements recited in the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner did not use the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 8/4/2023 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” Accordingly, Berkheimer evidence is not 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-23 are directed to computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable storage media, computer system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-23 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 14 recite the limitations of
…instantiating…a current instance of a workflow…executing…the current instance of the workflow…to form a current executing instance of the workflow…receiving…a step signal as each step of a plurality of steps executes in a step sequence of the current executing instance of the workflow…displaying… the step sequence of the plurality of steps comprising the current executing instance of the workflow in a format…recording… the step sequence of the plurality of steps comprising the current executing instance of the workflow in a directed graph of the current executing instance of the workflow as each step executes in real time…performing…comparison of the directed graph of the current executing instance of the workflow with a stored directed graph of a previously learned instance of the workflow… comparison… tracks nodes and directed edges of the directed graph of the current executing instance of the workflow and…compares each node and directed edge tracked by the step tracker against corresponding nodes and directed edges of the stored directed graph of the previously learned instance of the workflow to detect nodes and directed edges absent from the previously learned instance of the workflow,
producing a set of detected differences representing portions of the current executing instance of the workflow absent from the previously learned instance of the workflow; determining… whether a workflow variant exists between the current executing instance of the workflow and the previously learned instance of the workflow based on whether the set of detected differences is non-empty… and responsive to determining that the workflow variant does existadding, …the workflow variant represented by the set of detected differences to the stored directed graph of the previously learned instance of the workflow…to expand the stored directed graph into a learned workflow variant of the workflow…updated to enable more accurate real- time monitoring and identification of variant flow patterns of future executing instances of the workflow.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of instantiating, executing, receiving, displaying, recording, comparing, producing, determining, adding, and updating data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and computer program product, the claim language encompasses simply comparing workflows, determining if a workflow variant exists from the comparison, and adding the workflow variant to a previously learned workflow. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that don’t require a computer. For example, the steps of comparing and adding data do not need a computer. The claims include additional limitations such as instantiating, updating, executing, receiving, displaying, and recording data. These limitations are also mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, a user is able to represent (i.e. instantiate) a workflow and execute a workflow without the use of a computer. A user is also able to display and receive information without the use of a computer. A user is also able to update data. The claims also recite additional limitations that provide details about the comparing steps such as tracking and detecting which are also considered abstract idea steps.
The claims also recite workflow monitoring and comparison. These workflows are respect to companies trying to accomplish their goals (See para 0002 in the Applicant’s specification). These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations) since this is clearly teaching workflow management. It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components do not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of workflow registry, computer system, processor, host system, step signaling application programming interface, an introspection application programming interface, user interface, client device, step tracker, correlator, computer readable storage media, and computer program product.
These components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe details about the workflow such as step durations and determining if the workflow fails or not. In addition, the dependent claims provide further abstract idea steps such as linking data. In addition, dependent claims provide further abstract idea steps such as sending data.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further states host system, computer, step signaling application programming interface, an introspection application programming interface, user interface, client device, step tracker, workflow registry, and correlator.
Claim 8 recites computer system, processor, computer-readable storage media, host system, step signaling application programming interface, an introspection application programming interface, user interface, client device, step tracker, workflow registry, and correlator.
Claim 14 recites computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media, host system, step signaling application programming interface, an introspection application programming interface, user interface, client device, step tracker, workflow registry, and correlator.
Claims 21-23 recite client device and introspection application programming interface
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations in para 0033.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0033. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Tiwary (US20240207626A1) who teaches average time durations with respect to a workflow.
Segalis (US20170359464A1) who teaches linking workflows based on identifiers.
Okita (US7221377B1) who displaying real-time workflow information to a user.
Lee (US20150286495A1) who teaches detecting workflows with fail runtimes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights