CTNF 19/065,437 CTNF 86813 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the application filed on 27 February 2025. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claims 1, 5 and 9 recite limitations for assigning conditions of approval, creating an order list for the conditions of approval data elements causing a unique identifier assignment, sorting element sin the list and allowing for selection and movement based on user input, and updating the order list by reassigning conditions to different positions. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Assigning approval conditions in a permitting phase, creating an order list, assigning a unique condition identifier, sorting a list for selection and movement and updating a list by reassigning conditions of approval elements to different positions in a list illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or user interface environment does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including providing content configured to cause a UI to be displayed, enabling and viewing, the recited abstract functions, as well as receiving input and generating an electronic document outputting the updated list. The receiving input and generating a document are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The processor that provides content configured to cause a UI to be displayed, views to show conditions and is configured to cause the assigning, creating, sorting, selecting, moving and updating are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps. Each of the additional components 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 in a generic user interface environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic user interface environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. For the receiving and generating an electronic document steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-12 include all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 9 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including descriptions of links to other applications sharing conditions, a list of conditions of approval from other applications, identifying a selection of conditions and assigning selected conditions. The additional elements recited merely describe the UI computer environment including rich text formats and providing content configured to cause a UI to display and fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible, the elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman et al. (US 2021/0248556) in view of O’Malley (US 2026/0024152) . As per Claim 1 Venkatraman teaches: A computer-implemented method comprising: providing first content configured to cause to be displayed a user interface (UI), the user interface being configured to enable a user to assign a plurality of conditions of approval data elements to a planning application, each condition of approval data element of the plurality of conditions of approval data elements including one or more conditions of approval to which a permit application is subject during a permitting phase (Venkatraman in at least [0021,0056-0057, 0200, 0244, 0248] describes providing content configured to cause a UI to display an interface that allows for allocation of actions for approvals as well as conditions for dependencies and other permissions through the interaction management system as is further described in at least [0005, 0012, 0014, 0060, 0116-0121]) ; creating an order list for the plurality of conditions of approval data elements causing each conditions of approval data element to be assigned a unique condition identifier (ID) (Venkatraman in at least [0248] describes creating a user-ordered list where users assign an action condition such as an approval or approval condition to a list of items) ; providing second content configured to cause to be displayed a conditions of approval view showing the plurality of conditions of approval data elements in a list sorted based at least in part on the order list, the conditions of approval view allowing individual conditions of approval data elements to be selected and moved within the list based on user input (Venkatraman in at least [0066-0068, 0070, 0079, 0087, 0098, 0100, 0115, 0118, 0120, 0122, 0124, 0126-0127, 0223-0224, 0236, 0244, 0248] describe the ability to provide content to cause display of approval conditions and the ability to revise, modify and move sequences and documents in a workflow sequence, allows for updates along with user permissions on a document and update workflow steps for actions to determine the list of actions, other actions including approval options and conditions can be selected and updated) ; receiving first input identifying a first condition of approval data element updating the order list by reassigning the first condition of approval data element (Venkatraman in at least [0066-0068, 0070, 0079, 0087, 0098, 0100, 0115, 0118, 0120, 0122, 0124, 0126-0127, 0223-0224, 0236, 0244, 0248] describe the ability to provide content to cause display identifying approval conditions and the ability to revise, modify and move sequences and documents in a workflow sequence, allows for updates along with user permissions on a document and update workflow steps for actions to determine the list of actions, other actions including approval options and conditions can be selected and updated) ; and generating an electronic document that includes the plurality of conditions of approval appearing within the electronic document in order based on the updated order list, each condition of approval (Venkatraman in at least [0004, 0051, 0090, 0206-0207, 0218, 0244, 0248] describe producing a digital asset, or live document that includes permissions, conditions, and other criteria related to approvals for a sequence of actions or a workflow) . Venkatraman does not explicitly recite that the inputs and updates relate to a destination position or a specified position in the order list. However, O’Malley teaches a system and method for the collaborative creation and management of projects using role assignments and predictive analytics. O’Malley further teaches: receiving first input identifying a destination position within the order list; updating the order list by reassigning the data element to the destination position in the order list (O’Malley in at least [0389, 0415, 0452, 0643] describes the ability to display an interface with options for making modifications such as to permissions and options lists, ranking of data can be constantly updated, and a list of prioritized sources or results that can be selectively sorted, filtered or prioritized as is further described in at least [0487, 0522, 0533, 0536, 0538, 0560, 0755-0758, 0863, 0881, 0893, 0933-0936]) Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to create and update a list of approval conditions to include techniques for changing the specific order of a list based on filtering or prioritization techniques because each of the elements were know, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performs the same function as it did individually. By allowing specific positions in the order list to be designated by input and updating the listing accordingly, the combination enables users to specify and customize the displayed information such that the importance or significance of elements is according to their individualized requirements. As per Claim 2 Venkatraman further teaches: wherein each condition of approval data element includes a condition definition formatted in a rich text format, wherein generating the electronic document further includes adding condition definitions in rich text format into the electronic document (Venkatraman in at least [0004, 0051, 0090, 0206-0207, 0218, 0244, 0248] describe producing a digital asset, or live document that includes permissions, conditions, and other criteria related to approvals for a sequence of actions or a workflow that can be rendered as a preview in a variety of formats capable of rich text formats such as docx, PDF, JSON, HTML, etc. as is described in at least [0104]) . As per Claim 3 Venkatraman further teaches: wherein the planning application includes a link to another application from which the planning application shares at least one inherited condition of approval, wherein the order list includes the at least one inherited condition of approval (Venkatraman in at least [0018, 0070, 0097, 0099, 0223-0225, 0234, 0240, 0244-0246] describe the ability to include a link to other details, information, documents, or applications where conditions can include inherited conditions or dependencies) . As per Claim 4 Venkatraman further teaches: providing third content that is configured to cause to be displayed a condition selection UI that displays a list of conditions of approval from the other application (Venkatraman in at least [0054, 0099, 0258-0259] describe the ability to display selectable conditions native to the editing application and not relying on the external application itself, instead the interaction management system allows users to perform assigned actions on the document using new permission sets not the roles or designations external to the system) ; identifying, based on second input, a selection of one or more conditions of approval from the condition selection UI; and assigning the selected conditions of approval to the planning application (Venkatraman in at least [0021,0056-0057, 0200, 0244, 0248] describes providing content configured to cause a UI to display an interface that allows for allocation of actions for approvals as well as conditions for dependencies and other permissions through the interaction management system as is further described in at least [0005, 0012, 0014, 0060, 0116-0121], [0066-0068, 0070, 0079, 0087, 0098, 0100, 0115, 0118, 0120, 0122, 0124, 0126-0127, 0223-0224, 0236, 0244, 0248] describe the ability to provide content to cause display of approval conditions and the ability to revise, modify and move sequences and documents in a workflow sequence, allows for updates along with user permissions on a document and update workflow steps for actions to determine the list of actions, other actions including approval options and conditions can be selected and updated) . As per Claims 5-12 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claim 1-4 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of claims 1-4 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plotkin (US 20260099666) Computer implemented methods and systems for generative document revision that transforms text within documents using a generative process that enables automated application of action definitions across multiple document elements while maintaining user control. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30. 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, 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 for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 2 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 3 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 4 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 5 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 6 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 7 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 8 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 9 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 10 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 11 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 19/065,437 Page 12 Art Unit: 3623
Prosecution Insights