DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #19/114,777, filed on 03/24/2025, and a preliminary amendment filed on 03/24/2025. This application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/CN2023/123677, filed on 10/10/2023, and claims Priority to Chinese Application CN 202211236511.4, filed on 10/10/2022.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, claims 24 and 31 recite communicating…to each of the plurality of robots…. But, the claims never state WHAT is being communicated. The claim goes on to say what is used to communicate and based on a type and configuration, but never what is actually being communicated. Therefore, the claims do not clearly and distinctly claim the applicant’s invention and appropriate correction is 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 1-12 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 “in response to a work item viewing request for a target work item, obtaining a flowchart of a target business corresponding to the target work item and providing at least a partial region of the flowchart in a work item detail page corresponding to the work item viewing request.” 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, and provide the flowchart in a work item detail page. 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, and provide the flowchart in a work item detail page. 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.
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.
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 of a target business corresponding to the work item, and providing the flowchart in a work item detail page. 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0271927 A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 15, Morales teaches:
A method (device) (medium) for viewing work item information, including:
in response to a work item viewing request for a target work item, obtaining a flowchart of a target business corresponding to the target work item (see Figure 3, [0026]-[0027], [0037], [0044], and [0047])
displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart in a work item detail page corresponding to the work item viewing request (see Figure 4, [0040], [0043]-[0044], and [0052]-[0053] in which the flowchart of the work item detail is displayed in the interface to the requesting manager)
Regarding Claims 2, 16, and 19, Morales 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 work item viewing 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 [0021], [0026]-[0027], [0034], [0037], [0040], [0044], [0047], and [0052] in which the authorized manager is converting or editing nodes which are pending nodes that are displayed relative to the master node; see Figure 4 which shows the flowchart of the work item with the created/edited/converted nodes)
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 Figure 4, [0040], [0043]-[0044], and [0052]-[0053] in which the flowchart of the work item detail is displayed in the interface to the requesting manager)
displaying summary information of the selected node in a second display region in the work item detail page (see Figure 4, [0040]-[0044], and [0057]-[0060])
Regarding Claim 3, Morales 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 [0052]-[0060])
updating the selected node highlighted in the flowchart to a pending node corresponding to the summary information displayed in the second display region (see Figure 4 and [0052]-[0060] in which the flow diagram displays the selected and pending nodes updated as the user selects, creates, and edits the workflow)
Regarding Claim 4, Morales teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 2
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)
displaying a region of the flowchart including the pending node in the first display region (see [0026], [0040]-[0042], and claims 5-6 and 18)
displaying summary information of the pending node displayed in the first display region in the second display region (see [0026], [0040]-[0042], and claims 5-6 and 18)
Regarding Claim 5, Morales 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 [0026]-[0027], [0037], [0044], [0047], and [0053] in which a user selects a node in the workflow flowchart and information associated with the node is displayed)
Regarding Claims 7, 17, and 20, Morales 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 Figure 4, [0026], and [0040]-[0044] in which the flowchart id displayed in a workflow page; the examiner notes that while the cited paragraphs do not specifically say “full-screen,” it is considered inherent that if the flowchart is displayed graphically on an interface to the user and it does not say that it is displayed in a “split screen” or in “part of the interface” that it would be a full-screen display)
Regarding Claim 8, Morales teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1
receiving a node editing operation for a node in the flowchart
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 and a node addition operation (see [0056]-[0062], [0065], and [0068])
Regarding Claim 9, Morales teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 8
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 [0021], [0025]-[0026], [0037], [0045], [0056]-[0062], [0065], and [0068]))
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 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0271927 A1 in view of Warner, et al., Patent No. 10,372,874 B2.
Regarding Claim 6, Morales teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1
Morales, 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 Morales 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.
Regarding Claim 10, Morales teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 7
Morales, 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 Morales 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.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Morales and Warner teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 10
Morales further teaches:
wherein the target display region includes the region of the flowchart including the selected node and 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 (see [0021], [0026]-[0027], [0034], [0037], [0040], [0044], [0047], and [0052] in which pending nodes that are displayed relative to the master node and in which the flowchart of the work item with the created/edited/converted nodes is displayed; see also [0040], [0043]-[0044], and [0052]-[0053] in which the flowchart of the work item detail is displayed in the interface to the requesting manager)
Warner further teaches:
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 Morales 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0271927 A1 in view of Cerar, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0348913 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, Morales teaches:
the method for viewing work item information of claim 1
Morales, however, does not appear to specify:
receiving a template update operation input for the flowchart
obtaining an update template corresponding to the flowchart
updating the flowchart based on the update template
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)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cerar with Morales because Morales already teaches adjusting of flowchart display of nodes according to user input, and adjusting a template based on a user selection allows for a customized display that better serves the user/manager and allows for delineated display of associated information.
Conclusion
The following prior art references was not relied upon in this office action but is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Breedvelt-Schouten, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0157074 A1- teaches a system for display of a workplace work item flowchart with editable and actionable information.
Yi, Zhang, Zhang Yong, and Wang Weinong. "Modeling and analyzing of workflow authorization management." Journal of Network and Systems Management 12.4 (2004): 507-535.
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