DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims X are canceled.
Claims X are new.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 04/28/2025 (effective filing date 04/28/2022).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: 04/07/2026, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on xxx as modified by the amendment filed on xxx.
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. Independent claims X, Y, and Z all contain the same inventive scope. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The closest prior-art (xxx) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following combination of features and/or elements:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow.
Claim 11 recites [a] method to provide navigation to a user interface page of a workflow of a collaboration environment, the method being implemented in a computer system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions, such that execution of the machine-readable instructions by the one or more physical processors causes the one or more physical processors to perform the method comprising: managing, by a server, workflow information characterizing a workflow of a collaboration environment, a user interacting with the collaboration environment via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over a network connection, the collaboration environment managing a work unit record for a unit of work, the work unit record including a current stage value of a stage parameter characterizing stage of the work unit record within the workflow, the workflow information describing: a set of stages; an order of progression through the set of stages; first rules that apply at a first stage in the set of stages; second rules that apply at a second stage in the set of stages; and a first set of automated actions to carry out in response to a first trigger event; establishing the network connection between the remotely located client computing platform and the server; effectuating communication of user interface information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present a graphical user interface work page for the work unit record within a graphical user interface of the collaboration environment, the graphical user interface work page displaying the current stage value; and responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input of a selection of a user interface element in the graphical user interface work page, causing the graphical user interface to navigate from the graphical user interface work page to a graphical user interface workflow page for the workflow.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 11-20 recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a process. Claims 1-10 recite a system/apparatus and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The following tables identify the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea. The column that identifies the additional elements will be relevant to the analysis in step 2A, prong two, and step 2B.
Claim 11: Identification of Abstract Idea and Additional Elements, using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea
Additional Element
11. A method to provide navigation to a user interface page of a workflow of a collaboration environment, the method being implemented in a computer system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions, such that execution of the machine-readable instructions by the one or more physical processors causes the one or more physical processors to perform the method comprising:
Preamble not given much patentable weight.
managing, by a server, workflow information characterizing a workflow of a collaboration environment, a user interacting with the collaboration environment via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over a network connection, the collaboration environment managing a work unit record for a unit of work, the work unit record including a current stage value of a stage parameter characterizing stage of the work unit record within the workflow, the workflow information describing: a set of stages; an order of progression through the set of stages; first rules that apply at a first stage in the set of stages; second rules that apply at a second stage in the set of stages; and a first set of automated actions to carry out in response to a first trigger event;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: managing, by a server, workflow information characterizing a workflow of a collaboration environment, a user interacting with the collaboration environment via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over a network connection, the collaboration environment managing a work unit record for a unit of work, the work unit record including a current stage value of a stage parameter characterizing stage of the work unit record within the workflow, the workflow information describing: …
But for the server and/or GUI and/or client computing platform, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
managing, by a server, workflow information…
establishing the network connection between the remotely located client computing platform and the server;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: establishing the network connection between the remotely located client computing platform and the server.
But for the server and/or GUI and/or client computing platform, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
establishing the network connection between the remotely located client computing platform and the server
effectuating communication of user interface information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present a graphical user interface work page for the work unit record within a graphical user interface of the collaboration environment, the graphical user interface work page displaying the current stage value; and
This limitation includes the step(s) of: effectuating communication of user interface information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present a graphical user interface work page for the work unit record within a graphical user interface of the collaboration environment, the graphical user interface work page displaying the current stage value.
But for the server and/or GUI and/or client computing platform, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
effectuating communication of user interface information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present a graphical user interface work page for the work unit record within a graphical user interface of the collaboration environment, the graphical user interface work page displaying the current stage value
responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input of a selection of a user interface element in the graphical user interface work page, causing the graphical user interface to navigate from the graphical user interface work page to a graphical user interface workflow page for the workflow.
This limitation includes the step(s) of: responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input of a selection of a user interface element in the graphical user interface work page, causing the graphical user interface to navigate from the graphical user interface work page to a graphical user interface workflow page for the workflow.
But for the server and/or GUI and/or client computing platform, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input of a selection of a user interface element in the graphical user interface work page, causing the graphical user interface to navigate from the graphical user interface work page to a graphical user interface workflow page for the workflow
As shown above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of implementing a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a GUI to communicate information (method and system claims). Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: a server and computing platform for implementing the method and system claims. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Examiner further notes that the “collaboration environment” is nothing more than a software application being executed on a generic retailer computer and/or computing system. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate, receive, send, process, analyze, output, or display data.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Capturing an image (code) with an RFID reader. Ritter, US Patent No. 7734507 (Col. 3, Lines 56-67); “RFID: Riding on the Chip” by Pat Russo. Frozen Food Age. New York: Dec. 2003, vol. 52, Issue 5; page S22.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Independent system claims 1 also contains the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor and storage medium, which are a generic computer components, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, Applicant claims managing workflow information…; communicating…; navigating a GUI; etc… Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Claim Rejections - Not an Ordered Combination
None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - Preemption
Allowing the claims, as presently claimed, would preempt others from implementing a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow. Furthermore, the claim language only recites the abstract idea of performing this method, there are no concrete steps articulating a particular way in which this idea is being implemented or describing how it is being performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Powers et al. 2016/0275453; in view of Viswanathan et al. 2022/0261288; in view of Sabo 2021/0097466.
19/191,878 – Claim 1. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 teaches A system configured to provide navigation to a user interface page of a workflow of a collaboration environment (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0009 - Methods and systems described herein facilitate accessing a specific instance of a user interface screen of a collaboration platform by selecting an active element in a guided navigation page of a plurality of guided pages that include information predetermined to be pertinent to the continuation of an activity workflow of a business for which the collaboration platform facilitates access to workflow activities and to facilitate direct navigation…]), the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0012; 0015; 0393; 0406]): manage, by a server, workflow information characterizing a workflow of a collaboration environment (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0081; 0453-0456]), a user interacting with the collaboration environment via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over a network connection (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0012; 0485; 0490; 0498; 0501-0506]), the collaboration environment managing a work unit record for a unit of work (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0059 - data set characterized by data having a plurality of core dimensions relating to parameters of a business][0337 - configured to manage jobs, events, tasks, and the like. The scheduler module may also be configured to review current status and history…]), the work unit record including a current stage value of a stage parameter characterizing stage of the work unit record within the workflow (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0044 - keep a record of all time summaries…][0046 - calculating one or more of data values and summaries…][0054 - data set may include data from a plurality of data domains, the data set characterized by data having a plurality of industry-specific core dimensions… current and alternate data domains…][0059 - data set characterized by data having a plurality of core dimensions relating to parameters of a business…][0411 - comparisons of a current and prior time periods selected from a set of time periods including days, months, calendar quarters, year to date, rolling 3 time units (days, months, and the like), and/or rolling 6 time units…]), the workflow information describing: a set of stages (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [044 - summarizing data into time period buckets (interpreted as a set of stages)]); an order of progression through the set of stages (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0437 - accesses and movement through interactions with selectable elements in the guided navigation pages being presented to the user…]); first rules that apply at a first stage in the set of stages (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0065 - the plurality of guided pages may represent a plurality of related views of the data set are generated by applying business rules associated with a workflow of a business to access of the plurality of industry-specific data sources][0070 - the method may further include configuring a set of business rules for accessing the model-based data repositories and attaching each business rule in the set of business rules for a specific model-based data repository to the specific data repository][0199 - develops rules for configuring the guided pages 102 and their inter-relationship based on information that the expert determines to be pertinent to the operation of a particular business activity][0255; 0321; 0456]); second rules that apply at a second stage in the set of stages (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0065; 0070; 0199; 0255; 0321; 0456]); and a first set of automated actions to carry out in response to a first trigger event (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0337 – automate events…][0339 – triggers…][0432 – automated action…][0486 - content triggered updates, activity-based triggers…]); establish the network connection between the remotely located client computing platform and the server (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0490; 0498; 0501]); effectuate communication of user interface information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present a graphical user interface work page for the work unit record within a graphical user interface of the collaboration environment, the graphical user interface work page displaying the current stage value (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0009-0013; 0132]); and responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input of a selection of a user interface element in the graphical user interface work page (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 ), cause the graphical user interface to navigate from the graphical user interface work page to a graphical user interface workflow page for the workflow (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0009-0013; 0031-0036; 0055]).
Powers et al. 2016/0275453 may not expressly disclose the “progression through the set of stages” features, however, Viswanathan et al. 2022/0261288 teaches (Viswanathan et al. 2022/0261288 [0155 - FIG. 12 illustrates an example of an interface 1200 that can be used for creating and/or configuring a stage of a custom workflow. The interface 1200 allows a user to specify various attributes of the workflow stage, such as a workflow stage name (“IN PROGRESS”) 1210, a workflow stage status (“Under Review”) 1215, and a workflow stage description 1220. The interface 1200 also show a position of the stage (“IN PROGRESS”) 1225 in the custom workflow, as well as the stage details 1230 for the stage] FIG. 12 illustrates an example of an interface 1200 that can be used for creating and/or configuring a stage of a custom workflow. The interface 1200 allows a user to specify various attributes of the workflow stage, such as a workflow stage name (“IN PROGRESS”) 1210, a workflow stage status (“Under Review”) 1215, and a workflow stage description 1220. The interface 1200 also show a position of the stage (“IN PROGRESS”) 1225 in the custom workflow, as well as the stage details 1230 for the stage. In addition, the interface 1200 includes a button 1235 to allow the user to add the stage to the custom workflow. For example, selection of the button 1235 may invoke (execute) the create stage module 140 previously discussed. A similar type of interface may be provided for configuring a subtask for the stage.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Powers et al. 2016/0275453 to include the features as taught by Viswanathan et al. 2022/0261288. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Powers et al. 2016/0275453 may not expressly disclose the “collaboration environment” and “work unit” features, however, Sabo 2021/0097466 teaches (Sabo 2021/0097466 [0001 - systems and methods for generating prioritization models and predicting workflow prioritizations][0004 - a system configured for generating prioritization models and predicting workflow prioritizations … manage environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment … environment state information may include values of user parameters and values of work unit parameters … The values of the user parameters may be organized in user records corresponding to users interacting with and viewing the collaboration environment and the values of the work unit parameters are organized in work unit records corresponding to units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the collaboration environment. The units of work may include a first set of units of work associated with a first user] One aspect of the present disclosure relates to a system configured for generating prioritization models and predicting workflow prioritizations. The system may include one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions. The processor(s) may be configured to manage environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment. The environment state information may include values of user parameters and values of work unit parameters. The values of the user parameters may be organized in user records corresponding to users interacting with and viewing the collaboration environment and the values of the work unit parameters are organized in work unit records corresponding to units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the collaboration environment. The units of work may include a first set of units of work associated with a first user.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Powers et al. 2016/0275453 to include the features as taught by Sabo 2021/0097466. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing a method and system to characterize work unit records of a collaboration environment based on stages within a workflow which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
19/191,878 – Claim 2. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the workflow information further describes criteria that must be met in order to progress from the first stage to the second stage (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0025 - navigation may allow direct movement between guided pages…][0199 - movement within and between different sets of domain specific data…][0343 - moving up one or more levels…][0437 - accesses and movement through interactions with selectable elements in the guided navigation pages being presented to the user …]).
19/191,878 – Claim 3. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the criteria includes one or more of work completion, uploading a digital content item, or communicating with one or more users (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0232 - pages for upload to the tablet device; 0345 - relevant information being uploaded to the salesperson's computer; 0378 - FIGS. 72 through 77 demonstrate the use of an interface for taking and uploading photographs][0458 - The API may provide two-way communication between a collaboration platform and a business intelligence platform…; 0500 – communication devices…; 0506 – communicate…]).
19/191,878 – Claim 4. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: responsive to the criteria being met for the work unit record, transition the work unit record from the first stage to the second stage by changing the current stage value from a first stage value to a second stage value (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0021 - Updates to the data presented in the first tab that impact the filtered view result in corresponding changes to the second tab][0037 - values][0108 - a navigational transition from…][0110-0112; 0130 – transitions]).
19/191,878 – Claim 5. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: responsive to the current stage value being a first stage value because the work unit record is at the first stage, select and apply the first rules to the work unit record (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0040 – rules; 0046 – rules; 0055 – rules…; 0057 – rules…; 0065 - applying business rules associated with a workflow of a business…; 0070 – rules…; 0255 - system for facilitating data discovery for operating a business via guided page navigation may facilitate creating and applying business rules to the models….]).
19/191,878 – Claim 6. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 5, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: responsive to the current stage value being a second stage value because the work unit record is at the second stage, select and apply the second rules to the work unit record (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0040 – rules; 0046 – rules; 0055 – rules…; 0057 – rules…; 0065 - applying business rules associated with a workflow of a business…; 0070 – rules…; 0255 - system for facilitating data discovery for operating a business via guided page navigation may facilitate creating and applying business rules to the models….]).
19/191,878 – Claim 7. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: manage, by the server, environment state information maintaining the collaboration environment (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0073; 0263 - a document management system…][0223 - implementing a guide page navigation environment…]).
19/191,878 – Claim 8. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the first set of automated actions include one or more of creating a new work unit record, specifying a user assignment, specifying a due date, work unit completion, causing progress to another workflow, or sending a communication to one or more users (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0037 - creating a large number of reports for a data set may include creating reports that may represent…][0230 – automated actions…][0337 - create and automate events…][0432 - automated action is the synchronization process produces…][0453 – due dates…][0463 - Automated processing functionality…][0475 - the collaboration platform to facilitate automated operation of the platform (e.g., sending reminders, and the like)…]).
19/191,878 – Claim 9. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the workflow is editable via the graphical user interface workflow page (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0157 - FIG. 37 depicts a domain editor interface][0318 – Fig. 39 … visual data integration module may be configured to include a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for data integrator and application to create and manage data flow…]).
19/191,878 – Claim 10. Powers et al. 2016/0275453 further teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: responsive to the work unit record being at a transition state between the first stage and the second stage, select transition rules that apply at the transition state (Powers et al. 2016/0275453 [0108 - pre-defining a navigational transition from a first page to a receiving page…][0130 – transitions…]).
19/191,878 – Claim 11. A method to provide navigation to a user interface page of a workflow of a collaboration environment, the method being implemented in a computer system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions, such that execution of the machine-readable instructions by the one or more physical processors causes the one or more physical processors to perform the method comprising: managing, by a server, workflow information characterizing a workflow of a collaboration environment, a user interacting with the collaboration environment via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over a network connection, the collaboration environment managing a work unit record for a unit of work, the work unit record including a current stage value of a stage parameter characterizing stage of the work unit record within the workflow, the workflow information describing: a set of stages; an order of progression through the set of stages; first rules that apply at a first stage in the set of stages; second rules that apply at a second stage in the set of stages; and a first set of automated actions to carry out in response to a first trigger event; establishing the network connection between the remotely located client computing platform and the server; effectuating communication of user interface information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present a graphical user interface work page for the work unit record within a graphical user interface of the collaboration environment, the graphical user interface work page displaying the current stage value; and responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input of a selection of a user interface element in the graphical user interface work page, causing the graphical user interface to navigate from the graphical user interface work page to a graphical user interface workflow page for the workflow.
Claim 11, has similar limitations as of Claim 1, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 1.
19/191,878 – Claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the workflow information further describes criteria that must be met in order to progress from the first stage to the second stage.
Claim 12, has similar limitations as of Claim 2, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 2.
19/191,878 – Claim 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the criteria includes one or more of work completion, uploading a digital content item, or communicating with one or more users.
Claim 13, has similar limitations as of Claim 3, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 3.
19/191,878 – Claim 14. The method of claim 12, further comprising: responsive to the criteria being met for the work unit record, transitioning the work unit record from the first stage to the second stage by changing the current stage value from a first stage value to a second stage value.
Claim 14, has similar limitations as of Claim 4, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 4.
19/191,878 – Claim 15. The method of claim 11, further comprising: responsive to the current stage value being a first stage value because the work unit record is at the first stage, selecting and applying the first rules to the work unit record.
Claim 15, has similar limitations as of Claim 5, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 5.
19/191,878 – Claim 16. The method of claim 15, further comprising: responsive to the current stage value being a second stage value because the work unit record is at the second stage, selecting and applying the second rules to the work unit record.
Claim 16, has similar limitations as of Claim 6, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 6.
19/191,878 – Claim 17. The method of claim 11, further comprising: managing, by the server, environment state information maintaining the collaboration environment.
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of Claim 7, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 7.
19/191,878 – Claim 18. The method of claim 11, wherein the first set of automated actions include one or more of creating a new work unit record, specifying a user assignment, specifying a due date, work unit completion, causing progress to another workflow, or sending a communication to one or more users.
Claim 18, has similar limitations as of Claim 8, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 8.
19/191,878 – Claim 19. The method of claim 11, wherein the workflow is editable via the graphical user interface workflow page.
Claim 19, has similar limitations as of Claim 9, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 9.
19/191,878 – Claim 20. The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to the work unit record being at a transition state between the first stage and the second stage, selecting transition rules that apply at the transition state.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of Claim 10, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 10.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claims 1-15, on page(s) 6-12 of Applicant’s Remarks (dated 12/27/2016), Applicants traverse the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing the following:
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 / § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claim X, on page(s) 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks / After Final Amendments (dated 07/15/2011), Applicant(s) argues that the cited reference(s) (Ellis and Vandermolen) fails to teach, describe, or suggest the amended features. Specifically, Applicant(s) argues that cited reference(s) do not teach, describe, or suggest the following: . With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kagawa et al. 2009/0235182 [0080 - assisting and managing a collaborative activity such as contents management, project management, workflow management]
Arora et al. 2022/0335812 [0035 - system can also allow workflow to be defined … and when progress of one stage is moved to another stage, the graphical user interface can show the current stage details in the user interface…]
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
V. Freedman et al., "A collaborative extensible user environment for simulation and knowledge management," 2015 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), Atlanta, GA, USA, 2015, pp. 280-286, doi: 10.1109/CTS.2015.7210435.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection and FINAL Rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone). Please schedule interview requests via email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b
Prosecution Insights