DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #19/114,777, filed on 06/17/2026.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are now pending and have been examined.
Claim 13 has been cancelled by the applicant.
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 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 11 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 14 claims a device comprising a processor and a storage. Therefore, the device is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 15 claims a non-transitory storage medium. Therefore, the claim in interpreted as an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category for patentability. Further, the claims is in conformity with the Kappos Memorandum of 2010 as it includes the phrase “non-transitory.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims 1, 14, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving…a request for viewing a work item corresponding to a specific node from a plurality of nodes in a flowchart, wherein the flowchart is pre-constructed, in response to the request, obtaining the flowchart, wherein the obtaining the flowchart comprises selecting the flowchart from a plurality of pre-constructed flowcharts based on at least one of version information or an update time of the flowchart and providing at least a partial region of the flowchart in a work item detail page corresponding to the request, wherein the partial region of the flowchart includes information indicative of the specific node and information indicative of at least one of additional node, from the plurality of nodes, that is related to the specific node..” The claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims are directed to the activity of “commercial interactions, business relations.” A manager or employee can receive a work item viewing request for a target work item, obtain a flowchart of a target business corresponding to the work item from among a plurality of pre-constructed flowcharts, and provide the flowchart in a work item detail page including information of one additional node related to the requested node. The claims simply automate the abstract idea using a computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically, “commercial interactions, business relations.” The claims are also secondarily directed to a mental process. A human operator such as a manager or employee with access to the target business and work item data can receive a work item viewing request for a target work item, obtain a flowchart of a target business corresponding to the work item from among a plurality of pre-constructed flowcharts and based on version or update time information, and provide the flowchart in a work item detail page including information of one additional node related to the requested node. This can all be done as a mental task accompanied by verbal or written communication of some sort. Therefore, the claims are secondarily directed to a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include the recitation of “an electronic device,” “a storage,” and “one or more processors” (claim 14), and a “storage medium” (claim 15). However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements in the claims also include “displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart….” Absent further detail, which does not even include a display device, these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and further are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com). Therefore this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements added by amendment include “input via a graphical user interface, the input indicative of….” However, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a tool to automate the abstract idea. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of this application to receive inputs via a GUI. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include the recitation of “an electronic device,” “a storage,” and “one or more processors” (claim 14), and a “storage medium” (claim 15). However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements in the claims also include “displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart….” Absent further detail, which does not even include a display device, these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and further are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com). Therefore this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements added by amendment include “input via a graphical user interface, the input indicative of….” However, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and is considered conventional computer functioning. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of this application to receive inputs via a GUI. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claims still are considered to be directed to an abstract idea. The claims the logical set of steps for identifying the entities available for receiving a work item viewing request for a target work item, obtaining a flowchart from a plurality of pre-constructed flowcharts based on a version or updated time, of a target business corresponding to the work item, and providing the flowchart in a work item detail page along with other associated information related to another node that is related to the requested node. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 2 is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com). What specifically is displayed is considered part of the information provided as part of the abstract idea. Claims 3-7 and 11 are considered conventional computer functioning, as it simply describes conventional display modes and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to be able to toggle between selected nodes that display various types or formats of information. Claim 8 is considered part of the abstract idea, as permissions for editing or deleting are authorized using a computer. Claims 9 and 10 are considered conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to have an editing function that can be triggered when viewing a document. The display function is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com). Claim 12 is considered part of the abstract idea, as a template can be updated as part of a commercial interaction or a mental process. The other claims mirror those already discussed above.
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
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(a) 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Cerar, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0348913 A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 15, Cerar teaches:
A method (device) (medium)of improving graphical user interfaces for viewing work item information, including:
receiving input via a graphical user interface, wherein the input is indicative of a request for viewing a work item corresponding to a specific node from a plurality of nodes in a flowchart, wherein the flowchart is pre-constructed (see Figures 4 and 6-9, [0005]-[0006], [0009], [0063]-[0068] in which the user interacts via the GUI and selects nodes from a flowchart of a workflow in order to view the work item in more detail, and in which at least at [0009] and [0063] the flowcharts are pre-constructed)
in response to the input, obtaining the flowchart, wherein the obtaining the flowchart comprises selecting the flowchart from a plurality of pre-constructed flowcharts based on at least one of version information or an update time of the flowchart (see Figures 6-9 and [0065]-[0066], [0078], and [0083] in which selected flowcharts are displayed based on version information)
displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart in a side portion of the page corresponding to the request, wherein the partial region of the flowchart includes information indicative if the specific node and information indicative of at least one additional node, from the plurality of nodes, that is related to the specific node, thereby improving a display form of the work item detailed page (see Figures 4 and 6-14, and [0063]-[0068] in which the side of the page displays at least a partial region of the flowchart and information from another node of the plurality of nodes related to the specific node)
Cerar, however, does not appear to specify:
displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart in a work item detail page corresponding to the request
Cerar does, however, teach displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart in a side portion of the page corresponding to the request in Figures 4 and 6-14, and [0063]-[0068].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart in a work item detail page corresponding to the request with Cerar because Cerar already teaches displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart in a side portion of the page corresponding to the request and displaying in a separate work item detail page would allow for the selected node information to be displayed totally separately in its own page while still having the GUI select additional related node information to be displayed so that the user can still have the related information accessible in case it helps them with workflow analysis of the requested node.
Regarding Claims 2, 16, and 19, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1…
wherein displaying the at least a partial region of the flowchart in the work item detail page corresponding to the request includes in a case that there is a pending node corresponding to the authorized user in the flowchart, using at least one pending node as a selected node in the flowchart (see [0006], [0062]-[0064], and [0072]-[0073]) user is converting or editing nodes that are used in the updated flowcharts)
displaying a region of the flowchart including the selected node in a first display region in the work item detail page corresponding to the work item viewing request (see Figures 4 and 6-14 and [0063]-[0068])
displaying summary information of the selected node in a second display region in the work item detail page (see Figure 4 and 6-14)
Regarding Claim 3, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 2
in a case that there are a plurality of pending nodes, in response to a node switching operation for the second display region, switching the summary information of the selected node displayed in the second display region to summary information of another pending node (see Figures 4 and 6-14 and [0063]-[0068])
updating the selected node highlighted in the flowchart to a pending node corresponding to the summary information displayed in the second display region (see Figures 4 and 6-14 and [0063]-[0068])
Regarding Claim 5, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1
receiving a node selection operation for at least one node in the flowchart, and displaying summary information of a selected node in the work item detail page (see Figures 4 and 6-14 and [0063]-[0068])
Regarding Claims 7, 17, and 20, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1
receiving a full-screen viewing operation for the flowchart, and displaying the flowchart in a process detail page (see Figures 4 and 6-14 and [0063]-[0068])
Regarding Claims 12 and 21, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1…
Cerar teaches:
receiving a template update operation input for the flowchart, obtaining an update template corresponding to the flowchart, and updating the flowchart based on the update template (see Abstract, Figure 5, [0005], [0009], [0063]-[0064], [0073], and [0077] in which a workflow display template can be updated by a user selecting from pre-defined templates and the system implementing the selected template for an updated workflow display)
Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Cerar, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0348913 A1 in view of Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0271927 A1.
Regarding Claim 4, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 2
displaying a region of the flowchart including the pending node in the first display region (see Figures 4 and 6-11 and [0063]-[0068])
displaying summary information of the pending node displayed in the first display region in the second display region (see Figures 4 and 6-11 and [0063]-[0068])
Cerar, however, does not appear to specify:
receiving a reset trigger operation for a first control in the work item detail page
Morales teaches:
receiving a reset trigger operation for a first control in the work item detail page (see at least [0021], [0037], and [0058]-[0060] in which a manager user enters a node conversion, deletion, or updating instruction in the work item detail page; the examiner notes that the limitation “reset trigger operation” is given no specific meaning in the applicant’s filed specification, and so the examiner by broadest reasonable interpretation interprets the limitation to be any kind of instruction or selection by the user of an action via the interface that triggers a reset of some sort in a node)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Morales with Cerar because Cerar already teaches editing and adding of nodes in such as [0019], [0034], [0063]-[0064], and [0072]-[0073] and allowing for a reset trigger would allow for a quick adjustment of a node during the time the user is engaged in workflow analysis and management.
Regarding Claim 8, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1
receiving a node editing operation for a node in the flowchart (see [0034], [0063]-[0064], and [0072]-[0073])
wherein the node editing operation includes a node addition operation (see [0019], Figures 7-8, [0064], and [0073])
Cerar, however, does not appear to specify:
in response to determining that the authorized user has an editing permission, editing the node corresponding to the node editing operation in the flowchart
wherein the node editing operation includes a node deletion operation and a node addition operation
Morales teaches:
in response to determining that the authorized user has an editing permission, editing the node corresponding to the node editing operation in the flowchart (see [0021], [0025]-[0026], [0037], [0045], [0056], and [0065])
wherein the node editing operation includes a node deletion operation (see [0056]-[0062], [0065], and [0068])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Morales with Cerar because Cerar already teaches editing and adding of nodes in such as [0019], [0034], [0063]-[0064], and [0072]-[0073] and determining a user is authorized would prevent any accidental or unauthorized changes to the workflow charts, especially when they guide employee protocols, and allowing for node deletion would allow for editing withy new nodes altogether when workflow priorities and tasks have changed or a workflow node is not working.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Cerar and Morales teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 8
Cerar further teaches:
wherein receiving the node editing operation for the node in the flowchart includes:
receiving a node editing trigger operation for at least one node in the flowchart (see [0019], [0034], [0063]-[0064], and [0072]-[0073])
Claims 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerar, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0348913 A1 in view of Warner, et al., Patent No. 10,372,874 B2.
Regarding Claim 6, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1
Cerar, however, does not appear to specify:
in response to a display adjustment operation for the flowchart, adjusting a display manner of the flowchart in the work item detail page
wherein the display manner includes a display size and a display region
Warner teaches:
in response to a display adjustment operation for the flowchart, adjusting a display manner of the flowchart in the work item detail page and wherein the display manner includes a display size and a display region (see Abstract, Figures 5-6 and 8, and Column 10, line 3-Column 13, line 18 as well as Column 15, lines 1-18 in which a workflow display can be adjusted for display sizes and regions for the information based on manual user input or other triggers)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Warner with Cerar because Cerar already teaches adjusting of flowchart display of nodes according to user input, and adjusting size and regions of display allows for a customized display that better serves the user/manager and allows for delineated display of associated information.
Regarding Claim 10, Cerar teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 7
Cerar, however, does not appear to specify:
receiving a positioning trigger operation for a third control in the process detail page
displaying a target display region of the flowchart in the process detail page
Warner teaches:
receiving a positioning trigger operation for a third control in the process detail page and displaying a target display region of the flowchart in the process detail page (see Abstract, Figures 5-6 and 8, and Column 10, line 3-Column 13, line 18 as well as Column 15, lines 1-18 in which a workflow display can be adjusted for display sizes and regions for the information based on manual user input or other triggers)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Warner with Cerar because Cerar already teaches adjusting of flowchart display of nodes according to user input, and adjusting size and regions of display allows for a customized display that better serves the user/manager and allows for delineated display of associated information.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Cerar and Warner teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 10
Cerar further teaches:
wherein the target display region includes the region of the flowchart including the selected node and (see Figures 4, 6-15, and [0063]-[0068])
Warner further teaches:
in a case that there is the selected node in the flowchart and the selected node is not displayed in the work item detail page, displaying the third control in the process detail page and the displaying the target display region of the flowchart in the process detail page includes: adjusting display information of the flowchart to display the region of the flowchart including the selected node in the work item detail page (see Abstract, Figures 5-6 and 8, and Column 10, line 3-Column 13, line 18 as well as Column 15, lines 1-18 in which a workflow display can be adjusted for display sizes and regions for the information based on manual user input or other triggers)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Warner with Cerar because Morales already teaches adjusting of flowchart display of nodes according to user input, and adjusting size and regions of display allows for a customized display that better serves the user/manager and allows for delineated display of associated information.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection based on 35 USC 112b:
The rejection was given in error and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 of the response that the Office has incorrectly characterized the claimed subject matter as a certain method of organizing human activity by asserting that every limitation of claim 1 recites “commercial interactions, business relations” and that the claims do not recite a commercial interaction or business relation:
The examiner points out that in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis the examiner determines if the claims RECITE an abstract idea. This does not mean that each and every limitation and element must be fully encompassed by the abstract idea. Additional elements such as technical elements are usually addressed in the Step 2A< Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses. A technique being computer-implemented or displaying flowcharts on a GUI can both be in the context of an abstract idea that is recited.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 9 of the response that the claims do not recite a commercial interaction or business relation:
The examiner points out that the “mental process” was not the primary abstract idea identified but only a secondary consideration. Further, the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis determines if the claims RECITE an abstract idea. This does not mean that each and every element must be fully encompassed by the abstract idea. Additional elements such as technical elements are often addressed in the Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses. The examiner points the applicant to Court decisions such as OIP Techs v Amazon.com and buySAFE v Google which both involved e-commerce systems with multiple processors, servers, databases, network interfaces, interfaces, and other such components that performed the limitations and yet the Court still found the claims to be patent ineligible as they were directed to abstract ideas. The examiner further points the applicant to Example 47 of the USPTO Updated PEG Eligibility examples in which Claim 2 is considered patent ineligible even though the training and use of a model by a computer at a high level of generality is recited. Such steps are clearly not performed in the human mind, but the claims were still considered patent ineligible.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 10 of the response that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the claims improve how flowcharts are displayed on a GUI:
The examiner disagrees. The claims do not improve HOW flowcharts are displayed by a GUI. There is not technical step that changes or improves how the GUI is displaying the data. The alleged improvement is to WHAT CONTENT is being displayed. Displaying a flowchart of information corresponding to a node related to the flowchart of the node that was requested is an information/data selection decision. Displaying one flowchart next to another one in a work-item detail page is not an improved interface or improved technical limitation, but only a description of WHAT data is being displayed.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 102
The applicant’s amendments have overcome the 102 rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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).
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights