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 .
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 101:
The Applicant makes many assertions against the analysis of the Examiner regarding 101. Among them, the most significant, is that the claims as amended overcome 101, because the cloud elements are no longer within the vicinity of a mental process. The Examiner disagrees. The cloud as disclosed by the amendment, isn’t functioning other than in its ordinary capacity. There doesn’t seem to be a practical application mentioned in either the claims or specification, regardless of the remarks.
Regarding 103:
The Applicant asserts that the claim amendments have overcome 103, because the amendments are not found within the prior art. The Examiner disagrees and has updated the rejection below to include the citations in the McFall reference that explicitly discuss the claim amendments. See below for further details.
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. Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of computer aided mental process.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1 and 11 when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea of a computer aided mental process.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1 and 11 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The above claim falls within a computer aided mental process, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.)
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…a computer-readable media…user interface…memory…cloud…server…graph…browser-based application”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) as well-understood, routine, conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 2-10 and 12-20 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1-20 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone.
Claims 1 and 11 do include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…a computer-readable media…user interface…memory…processor…graph…application…cloud…server…”
These amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and a high level of generality.
In addition, Fig.1 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the system. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7,9-12,15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich (US Pub. No. 20050138109) (Hereinafter, Redlich) in view of Tang (US Pub. No. 20180041530) (Hereinafter, Tang) in further view of McFall, et al. (US Pub. No. 20230359770), (Hereinafter, McFall)
As per claim 1.)
Redlich teaches,
a system for privacy-preserving workflow analysis, comprising:
a computing device comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the computing device to:
(Abstract)
capture workflow events from a browser-based application;
(Paragraph 59, noting “…implement a method and apparatus for targeted extraction and encryption of security sensitive items. The extraction capabilities of the system enable different workflow modes. The system enables extraction and encryption of important and critical content. In essence, only the critical content is extracted and/or encrypted, whereas the rest of the document remains as plaintext…”)
Redlich does not explicitly teach; however, Tang does teach,
generate event pointers for the captured workflow events, wherein each event pointer comprises temporal data and interaction type data…
(paragraph 82 & 84, noting on 82 “…the characteristic may be extracted from at least one of the following dimensions: upstream and downstream information, a server dimension, a web page programming language dimension, a time dimension, and web page description information…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Tang within the invention of Redlich with the motivation of an accurate result of malicious web address detection, can detect various newly emerging malicious web addresses, and are user-friendly. (Tang Abstract)
Redlich does teach,
…while automatically excluding sensitive content detected within the captured workflow events
(claim 1, noting “…extracting with said filter said security sensitive words, characters or data objects and said retrieved data to obtain extracted data and remainder data therefrom…”)
Redlich/Tang do not teach; however, McFall does teach,
wherein generating event pointers comprises automatically excluding sensitive content by applying format-preserving tokenization to structured data fields,
(paragraphs 16, 17, 23, and 85)
applying consistent hashing to repeated values to maintain consistency across the workflow,
(paragraphs 23, 410, and 644)
and applying pattern-based masking to semi-structured data;
(paragraphs 23 and 85)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of McFall within the invention of Redlich/Tang with the motivation of allowing the identification and protection of sensitive data in multiple ways, which can be combined for different workflows, data situations or use cases. The system scans datasets to identify sensitive data or identifying datasets, and to enable the anonymization of sensitive or identifying datasets by processing that data to produce a safe copy.
Redlich teaches,
store the event pointers in a data structure maintaining a sequence corresponding to the workflow events;
(Paragraph 167, noting “ Step 252 stores the common data or the remainder data. …Step 258 stores a map.”; the common or remainder data are the data that is not the sensitive content from above in Redlich, thus, when combined with Tang, it would become the event pointer data corresponding to the workflow as the remaining or common data)
Redlich/Tang do not teach; however, McFall does teach,
transmit, over a communication network to an analytics engine executing on a cloud- based integration server that is separate from the computing device, anonymized event pattern data derived from the stored event pointers
(paragraphs 773,774, and 1041, noting in the paragraphs “…the joined dataset may then be anonymized… All aspects…can be implemented in a fully scalable cloud computing infrastructure… uses a set of patterns representing common formats to identify the presence of standard identifier types; scans unstructured columns (for example, log files, chat/email messages, call transcriptions or contracts) for substrings that are equal to values in other columns marked as identifying…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of McFall within the invention of Redlich/Tang with the motivation of allowing the identification and protection of sensitive data in multiple ways, which can be combined for different workflows, data situations or use cases. The system scans datasets to identify sensitive data or identifying datasets, and to enable the anonymization of sensitive or identifying datasets by processing that data to produce a safe copy.
Redlich teaches,
reconstruct the workflow events using the stored event pointers by correlating the temporal data and interaction type data to recreate workflow states without the excluded sensitive content;
(paragraph 170; noting on paragraph 170, “If the user has correctly input the security code, the system in step 318 releases the keys (to decrypt) and the map and releases the reconstruction request to the remote storage for the extracted data. This could be computer storage I-ext. 156 or computer storage B-ext. 110. In step 320, the user's access to the extracted data is logged in along with the time and day and type of data request. In step 322, the system downloads the extracted data into RAM 166 and/or hard drive 168 of computer 140. In step 324, an error routine is operated on the extracted data in order to ensure that the extracted data properly matches the common or remainder previously stored.)
Redlich/Tang do not teach; however, McFall teaches,
Wherein reconstructing the workflow events comprises constructing a directed acyclic graph representing temporal and causal relationships between events and traversing the directed acyclic graph to recreate workflow states;
(paragraphs 468, read in light of 474, 101, 157, 449, 568, )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of McFall within the invention of Redlich/Tang with the motivation of allowing the identification and protection of sensitive data in multiple ways, which can be combined for different workflows, data situations or use cases. The system scans datasets to identify sensitive data or identifying datasets, and to enable the anonymization of sensitive or identifying datasets by processing that data to produce a safe copy.
Redlich teaches,
and
display the reconstructed workflow events in a user interface.
(paragraph 178)
As per claim 2,
Redlich teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein reconstructing the workflow events comprises:
substituting synthetic data for sensitive content in the reconstructed workflow events.
(paragraph 180)
As per claim, 5,
Redlich does not teach; however, Tang does teach,
the system of claim 1, wherein each event pointer comprises:
a timestamp;
(paragraph 82, noting “…a time dimension…”)
an event type identifier;
(paragraph 82, noting “…web page description information…”)
a target element identifier;
(Paragraph 280, noting “…In step 708, place holders are added to replace the extracted security data in the remainder data and a hyperlink is added to the open field remainder data providing a link to the secure data ASP. In step 710, the user selects the “send button” or any other indicator on the HTML page triggering an operation which transmits the open field data (which is now remainder data) to the web server…”)
a template identifier;
(Paragraph 91, noting “…the method/process/program obtains a security safe document formatted as a safe document object model. Security exons are copied from the content data and meta data binary files into the security safe document (template) formatted as the safe document object model…”)
and compliance status data
(Paragraph 167, noting “…Step 250 conducts an error check on the extracted data. This error check is helpful in discerning problems in the storage of the data prior to closing down the data security system. Step 252 stores the common data or the remainder data. Step 254 conducts an error check on the common or remainder data. …”; Examiner noting the error check functioning as the compliance status).
As per claim 6,
Redlich teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to:
maintain different privacy contexts for training, quality assurance, and compliance monitoring
(Paragraph 41, noting “…matches the current protocols for various security levels, which can be configured to match security concerns with compliance with law, regulation or policy, privacy, national, organizational or private security concerns…” noting on paragraph 71, “…It can adjust the security defenses based on the performance needs of the network… training requirements…”)
As per claim 7,
Redlich teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the browser-based application comprises a customer relationship management system
(paragraph 37, noting the prior art giving examples of applications of CRM).
As per claim 9,
Redlich teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: validate reconstructed workflow events against predefined compliance rules
(paragraph 41, noting “…matches the current protocols for various security levels, which can be configured to match security concerns with compliance with law, regulation or policy, privacy, national, organizational or private security concerns…”)
As per claim 10,
Redlich teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein displaying the reconstructed workflow events comprises: displaying visual indicators highlighting current interaction points in the workflow
(Paragraph 272, noting “…The filter is used in step 604. In step 612, security words are highlighted or distinguished in the e-mail prior to the actual sending of the e-mail to the addressee. ...”)
As per claims 11, 12, 15-17, 19-20:
Claims 11-12, 15-17, and 19-20 disclose similar limitations to the claims above, however, in a method form. Redlich teaches such a form, see, Redlich Abstract. Therefore, claims 11-12, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under similar rationale as the claims above.
Claims 3,8,13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich in view of Tang in further view of McFall and in further view of Romey (US Pub. No. 20220141523) (Hereinafter, Romey).
As per claim 3,
Redlich/Tang/McFall do not teach, however, Romey does teach,
the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises:
playback controls for controlling replay of the reconstructed workflow events;
(paragraph 8, noting the present disclosure includes a method for initiating sync playback within a client web browser by requesting a plurality of data and processing the plurality of data so that the plurality of data is compatible with the client web browser…”)
a timeline showing the sequence of workflow events;
(paragraph 26, noting “…The video timeline displays those timestamps formatted like 3 pm . . . 4 pm or 10/19 . . . 10/25 (depending on timeline zoom level) as that makes the most sense to the end user and helps navigating through the video material…”)
and an event details panel displaying metadata about current workflow events.
(Fig. 4 and corresponding text paragraph 44-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Romey within the invention of Redlich/Tang/McFall with the motivation of improving the accessibility of sync playback, operators can search in workflow videos in a more efficient manner. (Romey paragraph 2)
As per claim 8,
Redlich/Tang/McFall do not explicitly teach; however, Romney does teach,
the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: enable addition of annotations during replay of the reconstructed workflow events
(paragraph 26, noting “…The video timeline displays those timestamps formatted like 3 pm . . . 4 pm or 10/19 . . . 10/25 (depending on timeline zoom level) as that makes the most sense to the end user and helps navigating through the video material…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Romey within the invention of Redlich/Tang/McFall with the motivation of improving the accessibility of sync playback, operators can search in workflow videos in a more efficient manner. (Romey paragraph 2)
Claims 13 and 18 disclose similar limitations to the claims above, however, in a method form. Redlich teaches such a form, see, Redlich Abstract. Therefore, claims 13 and 18 are rejected under similar rationale as the claims above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich in view of Tang in further view of McFall and in further view of Yeleshwarapu (US Pub. No. 2022/0300812) (Hereinafter, Yeleshwarapu)
As per claim 4,
Redlich teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to:
analyze the sequence of workflow events to identify workflow patterns;
(Paragraph 220, noting “…The early-stage processing, enables early-stage inventorying of prioritized contents as well as early-stage pattern recognition. …”)
Redlich/Tang/McFall do not explicitly teach, however, Yeleshwarapu, does teach,
generate workflow efficiency metrics;
(paragraph 29 and 68, noting on 29, “… a model may map states of computation throughout of workflows execution to the obtained performance of the workflow with respect to the user-defined quality metrics…; noting on 68, “…monitoring data from the compute nodes (such as CPU utilization, memory utilization, CPU time, user time, system time, and process time) and other derived metrics to train itself (step 320)…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Yeleshwarapu within the invention of Redlich/Tang/McFall with the motivation of optimizing an allocation of resources of the set of resources to each task of the sets of tasks to ensure compliance with a user-defined metric. (Yeleshwarapu Abstract)
Redlich teaches,
and detect compliance violations
(paragraph 8, noting “…With the use of tools called distributed fingerprints (hashes), the stored data is distributed using the fingerprints and coding functions to determine errors…”).
Claim 14 discloses similar limitations to the claims above, however, in a method form. Redlich teaches such a form, see, Redlich Abstract. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale as the claims above.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 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 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights