DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 19/204,159 filed on 05/09/2025. In response to the Election/Restriction requirement of 06/08/2026, Applicant, on 07/01/2026, elected Group I, claims 1-8 and 9-16, for examination. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-8 and 9-16 have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 19/204,159 filed 05/09/2025 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/644,806, filed 05/09/2024, and claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/762,813, filed 02/25/2025.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant's election without traverse of the restriction dated 06/08/2026 in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
5. In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-8 and 9-16. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Claim 1 recites “create one or more application programming interfaces (A PIs) for implementing the respective steps for completion by the at least one machine…” Claim 1 should recite “create one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) for implementing the respective steps for completion by the at least one machine…” Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Claim 9 recites “presenting, to a user via at least one manager computing device, a workflow editing interface to allow the user to create a workflow defining; one or more steps of the workflow to be completed by one or more workers; one or more workstations operable by one or more workers to complete the one or more steps; one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations…” Claim 9 should recite “presenting, to a user via at least one manager computing device, a workflow editing interface to allow the user to create a workflow defining: one or more steps of the workflow to be completed by one or more workers; one or more workstations operable by one or more workers to complete the one or more steps; and one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations …” the semicolon following the phrase “create a workflow defining” should be replace with a colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 8-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
10. Claim 8 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the workflow comprises…” However, claim 1 is directed to a system, not a method. Accordingly, the dependency of claim 8 is improper. It is unclear if claim 8 is intended to recite “The system of claim 1” or “The method of claim 9,”
therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 9 recites “presenting, to the user via the at least one manager computing device, an application programming interface, API, dashboard to allow the user to create one or more APIs for implementing the at least one machine into the workflow.” The phrase “an application programming interface, API, dashboard” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the claim recites an “application programming interface (API) dashboard,” an API, or multiple distinct interfaces, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
12. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-8) and method (claims -16) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-16 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: one or more workstations operable by one or more workers to complete one or more steps in a workflow; one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations, each of the one or more computing devices configured to display respective steps of the one or more steps that are associated with each respective workstation of the one or more workstations, the respective steps to be completed by a respective worker of the one or more workers; at least one machine coupled to at least one workstation of the one or more workstations, the at least one machine operable by a respective worker of the one or more workers to complete respective steps of the one or more steps in the workflow; and at least one manager computing device coupled to the one or more computing devices and configured to provide the respective steps to each of the one or more computing devices, the at least one manager computing device further configured to allow a user to edit the one or more steps and to create one or more application programming interfaces (A PIs) for implementing the respective steps for completion by the at least one machine. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106. The steps related to organizing and managing a logistics workflow, assigning tasks to workers, displaying instructions, and coordinating people and machines are forms of organizing human activities.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: one or more workstations operable by one or more workers, one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations, each of the one or more computing devices configured to, at least one machine coupled to at least one workstation of the one or more workstations, the at least one machine operable by a respective worker of the one or more workers, at least one manager computing device coupled to the one or more computing devices and configured to, and create one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) (claim 1); at least one manager computing device, a workflow editing interface, one or more workstations operable by one or more workers, one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations, each of the one or more computing devices configured to, at least one machine coupled to at least one workstation of the one or more workstations, an application programming interface, API, dashboard, one or more APIs, each respective computing device (claim 9). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the displaying and transmitting steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: one or more workstations operable by one or more workers, one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations, each of the one or more computing devices configured to, at least one machine coupled to at least one workstation of the one or more workstations, the at least one machine operable by a respective worker of the one or more workers, at least one manager computing device coupled to the one or more computing devices and configured to, and create one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) (claim 1); at least one manager computing device, a workflow editing interface, one or more workstations operable by one or more workers, one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations, each of the one or more computing devices configured to, at least one machine coupled to at least one workstation of the one or more workstations, an application programming interface, API, dashboard, one or more APIs, each respective computing device (claim 9). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification acknowledges that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general purpose computer executing instructions to implement the invention (Specification at paragraph [0095]). Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Even if the displaying and transmitting steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 recite the same abstract ideas as recited in the independent claims by reciting steps/details for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions). For example, dependent claims 2-8 recite the limitations “wherein the one or more machines comprise one or more of: a conveyor belt; a packaging machine; a cleaning machine; a camera; a sanitizing machine; a postage machine,” “wherein the at least one manager computing device comprises one or more of: a computer; one or more laptops; one or more servers; one or more smartphones; a database,” “allow the user to create a version-controlled library of custom functions which can be used by at least one of: the one or more workstations; the one or more computing devices; the at least one machine,” “wherein the at least one manager computing device comprises a built-in workflow template library to provide examples of common logistics workflows,” “wherein the at least one manager computing device is operable to provide the one or more computing devices an artificial intelligence (AI)-based assistant for use by the one or more workers at the one or more computing devices,” “wherein the one or more computing devices are operable to capture a digital signature as a web component, used in a workflow step,” “wherein the workflow comprises at least one of: a process for recycling a smartphone; a process for shipping a smartphone; a process for packing and addressing mail,” however, these limitations fall under the same “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea groupings by describing additional details for organizing human activity. Claims 10-16 have been evaluated as well, however these claims, similarly to dependent claims 2-8, recite details that fall within the scope of the abstract idea itself by providing limitations that narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims. The one or more of: a conveyor belt, a packaging machine, a cleaning machine, a camera, a sanitizing machine, a postage machine (claims 2, 11), one or more of: a computer; one or more laptops; one or more servers; one or more smartphones; a database (claims 3, 12), a version-controlled library (claims 4, 13), a built-in workflow template library (claims 5, 14), an artificial intelligence (AI)-based assistant (claims 6, 15), and a web component (claims 7, 16) have been evaluated as an additional element as well. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Even if the artificial intelligence (AI)-based assistant was evaluated as an element beyond software/code for a generic computer to execute, it is noted that that the claimed use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is recited at a high level of generality these elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, which fails to add significantly more to the claims. See, e.g., Magdon-Ismail et al., US 2009/0055270 (paragraph 39: “Both local and central engines may incorporate analysis techniques, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and other techniques, which are well known in the art”).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
16. 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.
17. The factual inquiries 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0330293 A1, [hereinafter Kulkarni], in view of Budinger et al., Pub. No.: US 2003/0220707 A1, [hereinafter Budinger].
As per claim 1, Kulkarni teaches a system for dynamically managing logistics-based workflows at one or more workstations, the system (paragraph 0081: “ workflow management system”; paragraph 0082: “A workflow management system may include one or more information technology components, including hardware and/or software, for assisting an enterprise or other user in managing a workflow, such as a workflow involving one or more assets”) comprising:
one or more workstations operable by one or more workers to complete one or more steps in a workflow (paragraph 0082, discussing that a workflow management system may include one or more information technology components, including hardware and/or software, for assisting an enterprise or other user in managing a workflow, such as a workflow involving one or more assets. Such a workflow management system may typically process inputs relating to a workflow, such as handling alerts, events, and other inputs and provide direction, assistance, data, or the like that assist the completion of a workflow, such as by prompting a user as to the availability of information and guidance as to steps to complete the workflow. Workflow management systems may frequently relate to assets, such as involving using assets to complete tasks, manufacturing goods with assets, using assets to perform services, tracking assets, reporting on information about assets, and the like; paragraph 0194, discussing that a wide range of applications may be supported by the system, with the needs of a particular application being served by accessing data (such as through APIs) that is handled by the various components of the system and with the user interfaces of such applications being configured to use or display the data in a manner suitable for the needs of the particular user. For example, an industrial workflow application, such as for managing an assembly line [i.e., one or more workstations], may take a feed of data from the system indicating where certain assets (which are tagged with leaf sense tags) are currently located within a factory, and the application may handle the location data according to the needs of the user, such as by graphically displaying the locations of the assets to users on a display screen, by storing the locations in a database table, by triggering events within a process based on the locations, or the like.);
one or more computing devices located at the one or more workstations, each of the one or more computing devices configured to display respective steps of the one or more steps that are associated with each respective workstation of the one or more workstations, the respective steps to be completed by a respective worker of the one or more workers (paragraph 0082, discussing that a workflow management system may include one or more information technology components, including hardware and/or software, for assisting an enterprise or other user in managing a workflow, such as a workflow involving one or more assets. Such a workflow management system may typically process inputs relating to a workflow, such as handling alerts, events, and other inputs and provide direction, assistance, data, or the like that assist the completion of a workflow, such as by prompting a user as to the availability of information and guidance as to steps to complete the workflow; paragraph 0084, discussing using the workflow management system, guiding execution of at least one task of a workflow based on the asset location information; paragraph 0805: “wherein the asset is at least one of a hardware asset and a human asset”);
at least one machine coupled to at least one workstation of the one or more workstations paragraph 0331, discussing that an asset passes on a conveyor belt through a factory. Various parts of the conveyor belt are within range of the nodes of various antennas. When the asset is within range of a given node, the system knows its general location. As the conveyor belt carries the asset, a laser finder at a pre-determined location or other device tags the asset. At that time, the laser finder conveys the asset's exact location to the system. In such a case, for a brief moment, the system may determine the location of the asset with accuracy of less than approximately one centimeter...); and
at least one manager computing device coupled to the one or more computing devices, the at least one manager computing device further configured to allow a user to edit the one or more steps and to create one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) for implementing the respective steps for completion by the at least one machine (paragraph 0167, discussing exemplary screen shots of a user interface for a workflow editor; paragraph 0508, discussing a that a cloud-based asset management system may include a workflow editor presented as a user interface for reviewing and setting user defined triggers and corresponding actions for when the triggers occur. For example, a user can review alerts associated with a category of assets or review alerts associated with a particular trigger. For example, a user can select a category of assets, a parameter and trigger value(s) for a selected category of assets, and a corresponding action. For example, using the asset management system to manage an automobile manufacturing process, categories of assets to be monitored may include various components or sets of components tracked in the manufacturing process, such as seat pallets, battery racks, door pallets, window pallets, and tire racks, for example. Once a category of assets is selected, various parameters associated with that category may be displayed, such that a user can select a desired parameter to be monitored...When a triggered event is detected by the system, a user can select which action should occur, such as directing the system to provide an in-app alert, send an email message, send a text message, or blink an affected tag, to communicate such a triggered event to one or more desired selectable recipients. Such a workflow editor is user friendly, intuitive, flexible, and allows a user much control over the trigger/action feature of the asset management system; paragraph 0546, discussing a tiered distributed processing architecture may exist across wireless access devices, access points and the cloud, including but not limited to: sensors, wearables, leaf nodes, POIs, reader nodes, cloud servers, and the like, for handling real-time location and sensory data from a plurality of leaf nodes and sensors that are associated with the POIs and reader nodes. While the cloud server may be remote from a client location, there may be reader nodes, POIs, leaf nodes, and sensors on the premise. The cloud server may store the majority of the logic regarding process flows, workflows and the like. Part of the processing to support the system may be performed locally on the sensors, POIs, reader nodes and the like while part of the processing is done remotely on the cloud server, which may have best practices, business rules and knowledge. The cloud server may have an API capable of generating a text message while a local reader node, POI, sensor or other BLE-enabled device or some combination thereof may be able to generate a local alarm…).
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the at least one machine operable by a respective worker of the one or more workers to complete respective steps of the one or more steps in the workflow; and at least one manager computing device coupled to the one or more computing devices and configured to provide the respective steps to each of the one or more computing devices. However, Budinger in the analogous art of workflow configuration systems teaches these concepts. Budinger teaches:
the at least one machine operable by a respective worker of the one or more workers to complete respective steps of the one or more steps in the workflow (paragraph 0079, discussing that the scheduler treats the underlying cause of the non-running state as an indicator of a maintenance task, to which it assigns a resource--here, a mechanic. It notifies both the mechanic and the information technology department (and/or other enterprise personnel) of the assignment, e.g., via a runtime client. The scheduler also messages personnel to have the parts prepared and delivered to the downed equipment; paragraph 0211, discussing that the workflow editor displays and builds workflows graphically, thereby permitting user-defined workflows. An exemplary editor display, including a sample workflow graphic, is presented. As shown in the graphical editor pane of that display, the workflow triggers on the All_Manual trigger. When that occurs, the Machine Ready? user interface message is presented at the operator console and, thereafter, the peCreate production action is exercised. The graphics 2104-2108 represent components of the illustrated workflow and are a subset of the available workflow components identified on the left side of the display; paragraph 0250, discussing that within at least selected real-time clients 18e, 18f, an ActiveX control reads "work" information directly from the aforementioned table for display to the operator via the corresponding workstation. A display of the type generated by that control is indicated by element 2330 in the drawing. Here, that display shows that, as of 10:58 AM, on Mar. 5, 2002, work available for the applicable real-time clients workstation includes "Use Lot 992 to Create 100 Widgets." Other work available for that workstation includes use of Lot 123 to create 9 red widgets, processing of Bin 5 of blue widgets, and use of Lot 342 to create 25 widgets. In alternate embodiments, interface mechanisms other than (or in addition to) ActiveX controls are used to display information from the aforementioned table to the operator. In yet still other embodiments, ActiveX controls or other interface mechanisms are used to convey information from the aforementioned table directly to control equipment (e.g., other than operator workstations); paragraph 0455, discussing that the runtime clients 18e, 18f allows operators to enter data responsive to those messages for entry into the respective plans. Manual collection plans appear on task lists for assigned workstations associated with the run-time clients 18e, 18f. When opened, entry grids enable operators to enter information for each PDI (process data item) in the collection plan. This data is stored in the databases. The illustrated embodiment also permits stored procedures to be included in collection plans: as the collection plans are opened and saved, additional activities such as calculations or communication with other resources can be executed); and
at least one manager computing device coupled to the one or more computing devices and configured to provide the respective steps to each of the one or more computing devices (paragraph 0454, discussing that all computers assigned to the workstation group receive the collection plan. The collection plan appears on the task lists of the runtime clients 18e, 18f, where it can be accessed and completed. Depending on the set-up, the collection plan is generated after a certain amount of time, an action, certain measurement of units, etc., based on the triggers assigned to the collection plan or properties assigned to the PDI. If the tag is configured for SPC tags, SPC tags can generate an alarm. The Event Manager saves messages on the queue to the InTrack database along with the collection time; paragraph 0466, discussing that the displayed task list can be filtered or sorted, as desired by the user).
Examiner notes that Budinger, in addition to Kulkarni as cited above, also teaches one or more workstations operable by one or more workers to complete one or more steps in a workflow
(paragraph 0454, discussing that all computers assigned to the workstation group receive the collection plan; paragraph 0455, discussing task lists for assigned workstations).
Kulkarni is directed towards system and method for managing and industrial workflow. Budinger is directed towards methods and apparatus for workflow editing. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards workflow management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulkarni with Budinger because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for order workflow management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method and system for creating workflows), and because modifying Kulkarni to include Budinger’s features for including the at least one machine operable by a respective worker of the one or more workers to complete respective steps of the one or more steps in the workflow; and at least one manager computing device coupled to the one or more computing devices and configured to provide the respective steps to each of the one or more computing devices, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating data distribution and visibility and providing improved methods and apparatus for workflow editing (Budinger, paragraphs 0010-0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the system of claim 1. Kulkarni further teaches wherein the one or more machines comprise one or more of: a conveyor belt; a packaging machine; a cleaning machine; a camera; a sanitizing machine; a postage machine (paragraph 0331, discussing that an asset passes on a conveyor belt through a factory. Various parts of the conveyor belt are within range of the nodes of various antennas. When the asset is within range of a given node, the system knows its general location. As the conveyor belt carries the asset, a laser finder at a pre-determined location or other device tags the asset. At that time, the laser finder conveys the asset's exact location to the system. In such a case, for a brief moment, the system may determine the location of the asset with accuracy of less than approximately one centimeter...; paragraph 0329).
As per claim 3, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the system of claim 1. Kulkarni further teaches wherein the at least one manager computing device comprises one or more of: a computer; one or more laptops; one or more servers; one or more smartphones; a database (paragraph 0170, discussing that claims to a “processing engine,” a “location processing engine,” a “processing pipeline,” a “cloud processing engine,” a “server-based processing engine,” a “cloud-based processing engine,” a “cloud location engine,” and “location engine” and “cloud server” are synonymous with one another and should be understood to encompass one or more data processing or storage modules, applications, components, services, resources, and the like that may be disposed in a cloud computing or similar environment, with one or more servers, for processing data collected from, or about, one or more devices of the system including leaf nodes, or data processed by, collected from, transmitted by or collected about one or more devices of the system including gateway nodes, such as for determining locations of one or more devices of the system including leaf nodes, determining or processing events relating to one or more devices of the system including leaf nodes, managing or processing information about a device of the system including leaf nodes, or the like, and references to any of the foregoing should be understood, except where context indicates otherwise, to encompass any of them; paragraph 0181, discussing that while only one cloud server 3000 is shown, it is to be understood that the system may comprise multiple servers, which may be located in a single cloud or in a plurality of clouds, which may be located on public cloud computing infrastructure, private cloud computing infrastructure, or a combination of those. “Cloud server” as used herein means “at least one server” except where context specifically indicates otherwise. Cloud server(s) 3000 comprises or accesses database 3200. Database 3200 may contain a wide range of information about the components of the methods and systems disclosed herein, the data collected by or about them, or relevant data from other systems, applications, or processes. For example, database 3200 may contain the unique identifiers and locations of devices of the system, status information from or about any of them, and information collected by or about them, including sensor information. Database 3200 may in particular catalog information about the leaf nodes 1000 and reader nodes 2000. The database 3200 may be a unified database, or it may comprise a distributed collection of various data storage resources, such as on-device memory, file system storage, server-based storage, disk-attached storage, network storage, or a plurality of linked databases, among others).
Examiner notes that Budinger, in addition to Kulkarni as cited above, also teaches wherein the at least one manager computing device comprises one or more of: a computer; one or more laptops; one or more servers; one or more smartphones; a database (paragraph 0088, discussing that a tag database server (serves as an interface between the production engine and the database; paragraph 0090, discussing an application server component that provides an interface between the production engine and one or more of the databases. The application server, which can be packaged separately from the event manager or other runtime components, support multiple access by simultaneous clients to these databases, e.g., thus permitting the production engine to access the databases for purposes of workflow execution while, at the same time, permitting the applications to access respective ones of those databases to carry out application-specific tasks (e.g., in response to notifications from the production engine; paragraphs 0068, 0093).
As per claim 4, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the system of claim 1. Kulkarni further teaches wherein the at least one manager computing device is operable to allow the user to create a version-controlled library of custom functions which can be used by at least one of: the one or more workstations; the one or more computing devices; the at least one machine (paragraph 0448, discussing that such as a directive from the operators or programmed instructions in the system, a reader node may request a leaf node to communicate the version of control program it is running in embodiments. In embodiments, if the operators desire that the lead node run a different version of program, then the cloud server may transmit an image of the program update into the reader node and the cloud server may instruct the reader node to push the image into the leaf node. The reader node may then transmit the image to the leaf and instruct the leaf node to run the program going forward; paragraph 0449, discussing that with respect to control programs run on reader nodes, the operators or other devices of the system request a reader node to communicate what version of the control program it is running. If the operators or system determines that another version of the control program should be used, the cloud server may then transmit an image of the control program to the reader node and direct the reader node to run the program going forward; paragraph 0549, discussing that control of the devices may be managed by an on-premise version of the software so that the control structure for both is the same).
As per claim 5, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the system of claim 1. Kulkarni further teaches wherein the at least one manager computing device comprises a built-in workflow template library to provide examples of common logistics workflows (paragraph 0062, discussing providing a reference data library containing at least one of device metadata, context data, business rules for stages of a processing pipeline, business rules for a domain, and process flows for devices that use the data communication nodes, wherein the rules and flows may be customized for particular situations; paragraph 0484, discussing that there may also be modules such as a process flow and work flow editor and a rules editor that may edit the rule/process library which describe how assets may be expected to move through a facility, actions to take based on an asset's movement; paragraph 0493, discussing accessing a stored process flow from a library and edit a process flow to create a customized process flow; paragraph 0495, discussing that the logic editor may include a predefined logic library and the custom logic definition GUI, which allows a user to author and save customized business rules for different stages of the process flow; paragraph 0489).
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 9 the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches a method of dynamically managing logistics-based machines with associated workflows (paragraph 0081, discussing a method for managing a work flow; paragraph 0609).
As per claim 10, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the method of claim 9. Kulkarni further teaches further comprising collecting one or more data points by the one or more computing devices (paragraph 0113, discussing transmitting the collected data with a timestamp; paragraph 0119, discussing time stamping the collected information with the time of collection; paragraph 0192, discussing various data that is collected, processed, handled and reported by those devices; paragraph 0488, discussing data collected from multiple sensors; paragraph 0272).
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 2, as discussed above.
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 3, as discussed above.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 4, as discussed above.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 5, as discussed above.
20. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Budinger, in further view of Gutierrez et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0149899 A1 , [hereinafter Gutierrez].
As per claim 6, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the system of claim 1. While Kulkarni describes use of machine learning (paragraphs 0488, 0500), the Kulkarni-Budinger combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one manager computing device is operable to provide the one or more computing devices an artificial intelligence (AI)-based assistant for use by the one or more workers at the one or more computing devices. However, Gutierrez in the analogous art of workflow malmanagement systems teaches this concept. Gutierrez teaches:
wherein the at least one manager computing device is operable to provide the one or more computing devices an artificial intelligence (AI)-based assistant for use by the one or more workers at the one or more computing devices (paragraph 0007, discussing that there is a need for a workflow management system and method that can automatically and efficiently identify related Components of Work, collect relevant actions and data surrounding the related Components of Work across various systems, services, and provides, and display the results in real-time or near real-time. There is a need for a workflow management system that does not require users to manually identify related files, communication, projects, or other context. Furthermore, there is a need for a workflow management system that does not require users to store all their data in a single central electronic data repository; paragraph 0471, discussing that the analytics server may be in communication with a search engine that utilizes artificial intelligence assistant to communicate with the user. The search engine may receive a text string from the user. The text string may be a question presented to the search engine in natural language such that the search engine (or the “assistant” or the analytics server) may understand the intention behind the question (e.g. through an artificial intelligence model using natural language processing and/or deep learning models specialized for intelligent search), such as the type (and other properties) of data that the user is looking for as well as what it relates to (e.g., units of work, electronic content, query terms for the analytical server). The analytics server may then use any query terms provided or data provided by the processing of the natural language query to identify one or more units of work within the nodal data structure described herein. The analytics server may identify relevant nodes, retrieve corresponding data, and transmit the retrieved data to the search engine (or a server associated with the search engine, or the “assistant”, or a server associated with the assistant, etc.) for display. The search engine (or the “assistant” or the analytics server) may, in certain configurations, return these answer as links to units of work/other data that contain the answers. The search engine (or the “assistant” or the analytics server) may, in other configurations return a simple answer to the natural language question in a natural language form by using certain analytical processes (e.g., through an artificial intelligence model using natural language processing) suggested answers from the nodal data structure).
The Kulkarni-Budinger combination describes features related to workflow management. Gutierrez is directed towards a workflow management system. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards workflow management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Kulkarni-Budinger combination with Guitierrez because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for workflow management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method and system for creating workflows), and because modifying the Kulkarni-Budinger combination to include Gutierrez’s feature for including wherein the at least one manager computing device is operable to provide the one or more computing devices an artificial intelligence (AI)-based assistant for use by the one or more workers at the one or more computing devices, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of delivering results in a faster and more efficient manner (Gutierrez, paragraph 0098); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 6, as discussed above.
21. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Budinger, in further view of Dhar et al., Patent No.: US 7,428,495 B2, [hereinafter Dhar].
As per claim 7, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the system of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Kulkarni-Budinger combination, Dhar in the analogous art of workflow systems and methods teaches wherein the one or more computing devices are operable to capture a digital signature as a web component, used in a workflow step. (col. 10, lines 45-50, discussing that digital signatures or other electronic verification means may be used to verify the authenticity of the applicant's information; col. 21, lines 3-13, discussing that the online automated loan system can be implemented in one of two ways. In one embodiment, multiple financial institutions compete for consumers via one system. In this embodiment, the workflow designer establishes a workflow that streamlines processes for receiving applications and processing the applications automatically. Each of the financial institutions in this system share the same workflow design. However, each financial institution can customize the specific selection criteria values within each step of the workflow design process. In the preferred embodiment, each bank customizes its own workflow processes and task parameters; claim 11: “wherein the communications component is web-enabled and built-in as part of an automated configuration of the workflow system).
The Kulkarni-Budinger combination describes features related to workflow management. Dhar is directed towards a workflow system and method. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards workflow management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Kulkarni-Budinger combination with Dhar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for workflow management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method and system for creating workflows), and because modifying the Kulkarni-Budinger combination to include Dhar’s feature for including wherein the one or more computing devices are operable to capture a digital signature as a web component, used in a workflow step, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of maximizing processing efficiency (Dhar, col. 2, lines 52-53); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 7, as discussed above.
22. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Budinger, in further view of Maes, Pub. No.: US 2011/0145278 A1, [hereinafter Maes].
As per claim 8, the Kulkarni-Budinger combination teaches the method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Kulkarni-Budinger combination, Maes in the analogous art of workflow planning systems teaches wherein the workflow comprises at least one of: a process for recycling a smartphone; a process for shipping a smartphone; a process for packing and addressing mail (paragraph 0050, discussing that submitting the order initiates a BPEL workflow which initiates the composition/decomposition of the order and passes the order processing to the various components that may be required, for example, for order decomposition and fulfillment. In this example, BPEL performs parts of the order fulfillment by starting the activation and provisioning of the SDP/applications and passing decomposed order fragments to BRM in order to create accounts and MetaSolv to start further order fulfillment, activation, and provisioning. Accordingly, if an account needs to be created in SDP or an application, for example, the flow can pass a request to the runtime component(s) to create the account and service. The workflow can also pass a request to the OSS to determine the pieces to be provisioned to activate that service for this order; paragraph 0051, discussing that each of these components can be running independently to perform at least one of these tasks, and can come back to the flow when that task is completed (successfully or unsuccessfully). In one embodiment, this flow is a BPEL workflow, which in other embodiments can involve SOA and EDA, with messages being further transformed to each target component based on canonical data model information. Error and/or result messages are returned accordingly, as well as any other notification/event that the applications may transmit. The overall process may be passed from an application/component to a component, or marshaled from the overall canonical data model to execute an overall SOA/EDA process. This may be triggered externally by other events, command lines, scheduled events, etc. In this example, the last component to return to the workflow is the OSS MetaSolv provisioning, activation, inventory management and order fulfillment application that indicates, after the decomposing part of the order and ensuring activation and provisioning of all items and other fulfillment (e.g., by, for example, ensuring monitoring of shipping the items such as phones or modems to the user), either via direct monitoring of the supply or via interaction with the ERP that directly drives everything to be fulfilled in the order has been activated, provisioned, or otherwise fulfilled. In the example, once the various components are provisioned, it is possible to come back and begin activating each component, as the components are enabled to begin processing for the user. Once the components are activated, the service is ready for use. In the example illustrated here, the service is a proximity service where monitoring of the presence and location information is done, and a proximity is detected. When a customer is close to a particular location, a notification takes place to a proximity service that initiates a call or SMS exchange (or another appropriate messaging channel connection) with the user, and a charge is generated for the activity).
The Kulkarni-Budinger combination describes features related to workflow management.
Maes is directed towards a workflow planning system. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards workflow management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Kulkarni-Budinger combination with Maes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for workflow management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (method and system for creating workflows), and because modifying the Kulkarni-Budinger combination to include Maes’ feature for including wherein the workflow comprises at least one of: a process for recycling a smartphone; a process for shipping a smartphone; a process for packing and addressing mail, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of modeling available services and products rapidly (Maes, paragraph 0003); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bandyopadhyay et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0141088 A1 – describes a batch manager for complex workflows.
Agarwal et al., Pub. No.: US 12,541,730 B1 – describes systems and methods for a workflow manager to adaptively throttle service calls to service endpoints.
Sandhu, Kuldip Kuldip Kaur. Improving work flow management in an order fulfillment organization. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011 – analyzes the current workflow management process, identifies major concerns with this process, and outlines the solutions implemented to improve flow management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Darlene Garcia-Guerra whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on 571- 270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
