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 .
This communication is in response to application 19/275,734 filed on 7/21/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are hereby examined. No claims are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the access token”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation of Claim 4 will be interpreted as “an access token”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “before the action is executed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “trigger an action”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation of Claim 6 will be interpreted as “wherein the connector specifies that at least a second external event must occur before the action is triggered”.
Claim 8 and 17 recites the limitation "executing the action". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “trigger an action”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation of claim 8 and 17 will be interpreted as, “wherein triggering the action includes modifying at least one cell of the table”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claims (1, 16, and 20) recite a method and systems to organize human activity by following rules or instructions. Following rules or instructions in a streamlined workflow to organize human activity recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems of organizing human activity (i.e. following rules or instructions) in a general computer environment. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional elements “processor”, graphical user interface”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are directed to further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not introduce any new abstract ideas or new additional elements that further impact analysis under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Disterheft (US 20210232992 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 16, and 20, (substantially similar in scope and language), Disterheft teaches:
A system for defining custom automations in software, the system comprising: at least one processor configured to: [see at least Disterheft: (Figure 1A)]
maintain, within a primary application, a table including rows, columns, and cells at intersections of the rows and columns; [see at least Disterheft: (Figures 3-4)]
present, in a graphical user interface, a plurality of selectable objects including at least one external block linked to a third-party application and at least one internal block linked to the primary application; [see at least Disterheft: (Figure 2), (Para 0010) “FIG. 2 is an example workflow editor user interface presented by a client device interacting with an automated workflow application of the document review platform, in accordance with an example embodiment”, (Para 0027) “ As a further example, the data bus monitor 131 may be configured to write instructions to the data bus 130 for execution by the document review platform applications 122 or the third party applications 143 (e.g., instructions formatted in accordance with an application programming interface (API))” ]
receive, via a user interaction with the graphical user interface, an automation definition [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0031) “The trigger event data and action data may include definitions of trigger events and actions, respectively. The trigger event definitions instruct the data bus monitor 131 what data parameters to monitor for and/or what devices/other data buses to monitor in order to determine whether a given trigger event has occurred”]
selecting the at least one external block as a condition representing an external event detected in the third-party application and selecting the at least one internal block as an action that causes a change in the primary application; [see at least Disterheft: (Figures 2-3), (Para 0049) “The workflow user interface 200 includes a canvas area 208 containing various user-selectable options the user can interact with in order to design the workflow. The user may design the workflow by adding trigger events and actions to the canvas area 208, as will be discussed herein. The canvas area 208 includes a user-selectable “add new function block” option 210. After detecting user input indicating a selection of the add new function block option 210, the automated workflow application 121 displays via the user interface 200 a new function block 220. The new function block 220 may include a user-selectable option 222 to add a new trigger event and a user-selectable option 226 to add a new action. ”]
establish a link enabling the primary application to receive data from the third- party application; [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0042) “The environment 100 also includes one or more third party server(s) 140. The third party servers 140 may each include a processor 141 and a memory 142 storing instructions executable on the processor 141. The memory 142 may store third party applications 143. The third party applications 143 may provide social media services, messaging services, calendar services, search services, etc. The third party server(s) 140 may include distributed servers forming a cloud network. Further, the third party server(s) 140 and/or the external database 135 may serve as sources of documents that may be imported to the document review platform 115 during the collection and ingestion processes described above”, (Para 0043) “In other embodiments, the data monitor 131 establishes a direct communication link (e.g., via the internet other communication network) to initiate functionality associated with the third party servers 140”, (Para 0054) “The trigger events may correspond, for example, to completion of a document review-related task. Components of the environment 100, such as the document review platform applications 122, the external database 135, and the third party servers 140, may write parameters of data to the data bus 130 in response to certain events occurring or actions being completed”]
monitor the third-party application for an occurrence of the external event; and [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0043) “In other embodiments, the data monitor 131 establishes a direct communication link (e.g., via the internet other communication network) to initiate functionality associated with the third party servers 140”]
based on a detection of the external event, trigger the action in the primary application. [see at least Disterheft: (Figures 2-3), (Para 0043) “The applications 122, 143, and 145 also may perform operations in response to messages transmitted over the data bus 130, such as messages from the data bus monitor 131 formatted in accordance with a corresponding API of the application. Trigger events and actions stored in trigger event database 125 and action database 127 may be associated with the devices and applications communicatively connected to the data bus 130”]
Regarding Claim 2, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1. Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the external event includes a receipt of a message by a service associated with the third-party application. [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0043) “The applications 122, 143, and 145 also may perform operations in response to messages transmitted over the data bus 130, such as messages from the data bus monitor 131 formatted in accordance with a corresponding API of the application. Trigger events and actions stored in trigger event database 125 and action database 127 may be associated with the devices and applications communicatively connected to the data bus 130”, (Para 0099) “The code blocks corresponding to trigger events and actions (e.g., code block 506-512 and 556-560) may also include instructions to the data bus monitor 131 to communicate status information regarding the corresponding trigger event or action to the automated workflow application 121. For example, the code block 506 may include a request to communicate a message to the automated workflow application 121 when the trigger event 1 occurs. Similarly, the code block 506 may include a request to communicate a message to the automated workflow application 121 when the action 1 and/or the action 2 is completed. The request may also be to communicate a message to the automated workflow application 121 when certain events of the action 1 and/or the action 2 are completed. In this way, the automated workflow application 121 can receive updates regarding the status of deployed workflows”]
Regarding Claim 5, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the automation definition further specifies at least one additional block and a connector that defines a logical operator. [see at least Disterheft: (Figures 2-4 and 5A-5B), (Para 0054) “The trigger events may correspond, for example, to completion of a document review-related task. Components of the environment 100, such as the document review platform applications 122, the external database 135, and the third party servers 140, may write parameters of data to the data bus 130 in response to certain events occurring or actions being completed. The data bus monitor 131 may detect the occurrence of trigger events by monitoring for the parameters of data associated with each trigger event, as indicated to the data bus monitor 131 by the instructions included the logic-based representation of the workflow”, (Para 0063) “As with trigger events, each action may correspond to a type of document review-related task. The data bus monitor 131 may push instructions corresponding to the action to the components of the environment 100 via the data bus 130 (or, in some embodiments, another communication link) if a corresponding trigger event or previous action is completed. The data bus monitor 131 formats the instructions in accordance with the instructions included in the logic-based representation of the workflow”, (Para 0092) “The logic-based representation 500 includes a definition 502 of the workflow 360. The definition 502 includes a code block 504 corresponding to the workflow name. The automated workflow application 121 determines the workflow name based on the user input from name option 206 and includes this in the code block 504.”]
Regarding Claim 6, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 5, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the connector specifies that at least a second external event must occur before the action is executed. [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0031) “For example, a trigger event definition may indicate a particular parameter (and/or state or value thereof) or data and/or an identifier associated with a device or data bus”, (Para 0051) “The type option 223 to select the type of trigger event may also include a field option 224 to the user may interact with to specify variables associated with the type of trigger event. The user interface 200 may present the field option 224 after the type of trigger event has been selected using the type option 223. For instance, the field option 224 may be included in the additional block or window mentioned in the previous paragraph. The field option 224 may vary depending on the type of trigger event. In addition, the field option 224 may include several fields for specifying multiple options related to the trigger event. After detecting selection of the field option 224, the automated workflow application 121 may display via the user interface 200 one or more fields that the user can enter information into or make selections from. For example, the field option 224 may include a drop-down menu with pre-defined options related to the trigger event”]
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein executing the action includes modifying at least one cell of the table [(see at least Disterheft: (Para 0068) “Further, an action may correspond to running a document review platform script, such as a script associated with a particular application of the document review platform applications 122. The field option 228 may include a field to select a previously-saved document review platform script or enter a new script”]
Regarding Claim 9, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to alter the at least one external block based on stored data. [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0044) “The components of the environment 100 may also register trigger events and actions with the document review platform 115. For example, the automated workflow application 121, in response to a request from a user of the client device 102 or from a system administrator of the document review platform 115, may generate (or may cause another application of the document review platform 115 to generate) a definition of a trigger event or an action and store the new definition in the trigger event database 125 or the action database 127, respectively”]
Regarding Claim 10 and 18, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the graphical user interface to present the at least one internal block or the at least one external block in expandable groups, each expandable group corresponding to one or more particular third-party applications. [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0050) “For example, the list may be displayed as a drop-down menu including entries for each trigger event”]
Regarding Claim 12, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to store an alteration to be accessed and reused for a later automation definition. [see at least Disterheft: (Para 0070) “As mentioned previously with respect to FIG. 10, a user can also add new types of trigger events and new types of actions that are not defined within the trigger event database 125 or the action database 127. The user interface may include a user-selectable “add new type of trigger event” option 230 and a user-selectable “add new type of action” option 232. The option 230 and the option 232 may also be displayed within a single block, or may be represented by a single option such as an “add new type of trigger event or action” option. When the user interface 200 detects selection of option 230 or option 232, the user interface 200 may display a new window with fields the user may populate with information concerning the desired trigger event or action, respectively. The fields prompt the user for information sufficient to generate a new definition of the new type of trigger event or action”, (Para 0072) “After the user has completed designing the workflow, as will be further described below with respect to FIGS. 3-4, the user may save the workflow by selecting the save option 240. A user may still continue to edit a saved workflow by interacting with the options within the user interface 200 and, more particularly, within the canvas area 208. Further, the user interface 200 includes a ready option 250 that the user may select to indicate to the automated workflow application 121 that the saved workflow is ready for deployment” ]
Regarding Claim 13 and 19, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein a second action causes a change to the third-party application. [The limitations describe intended results that do not carry patentable weight in the claims, see MPEP 2111.04; see at least Disterheft: (Para 0043) “In some embodiments, the third party servers 140 may, like the external database 135 and the document review platform 115, read data from and write data to the data bus 130. For example, after performing a certain operations, the document review platform applications 122 and/or the third party applications 143 may, write data to the data bus 130 to cause another component to perform an action. In other embodiments, the data monitor 131 establishes a direct communication link (e.g., via the internet other communication network) to initiate functionality associated with the third party servers 140. The applications 122, 143, and 145 also may perform operations in response to messages transmitted over the data bus 130, such as messages from the data bus monitor 131 formatted in accordance with a corresponding API of the application”, (Para 0066) “Another action may correspond to sending a message, such as an e-mail, a Slack message, a tweet, or other form of messaging. A field option 228 may include fields for entering particular email/messaging application addresses as well as text and/or parameters to include in the message body. For example, the action may correspond to calling a messaging application of the third-party applications 143”]
Regarding Claim 14, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 13, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 13, wherein the change to the third-party application is caused using the primary application. [The limitations describe intended results that do not carry patentable weight in the claims; see MPEP 2111.04; see at least Disterheft: (Para 00660) “Another action may correspond to sending a message, such as an e-mail, a Slack message, a tweet, or other form of messaging. A field option 228 may include fields for entering particular email/messaging application addresses as well as text and/or parameters to include in the message body. For example, the action may correspond to calling a messaging application of the third-party applications 143”]
Regarding Claim 15, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 13, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 13, wherein the action that causes a change in the primary application and the second action are connected. [the limitation describes intended results that do not carry patentable weight in the claims]
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Disterheft (US 20210232992 A1) in view of Jakobovits (US 20190121498 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 2.
While Disterheft teaches a workflow automation system, it does not explicitly teach but Jakobovits does teach:
The system of claim 2, wherein the action includes creating a new group within the primary application that is associated with particular users in the primary application. [see at least Jakobovits: (Para 0039) “User manipulation of groups of graphical targets, referred to as group interactions, at client nodes, such as group creation, duplication, movement, editing, group membership modifications, deletion and other group management interactions”]
Further, 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 workflow automation system (Disterheft) with the grouping of users (Jakobovits). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of grouping users for user management and collaboration in a computer implemented workflow environment.
Regarding Claim 4, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1.
While Disterheft teaches a workflow automation system, it does not explicitly teach but Jakobovits does teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the link is established by exchanging the access token during an authentication process and wherein the access token is stored [see at least Jakobovits: (Para 0148) “FIG. 15D illustrates the data structure for links to a user participating in a session in a chosen workspace. This data structure can include an access token, the client identifier for the session display client, the user identifier linked to the display client, a parameter indicating the last time that a user accessed a session, and expiration time and a cookie for carrying various information about the session. This information can, for example, maintain a current location within the workspace for a user, which can be used each time that a user logs in to determine the workspace data to display at a display client to which the login is associated”]
Further, 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 workflow automation system (Disterheft) with authenticating with access tokens (Jakobovits). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the security benefits of an authentication process in a system that exchanges information with third-party applications.
Regarding Claim 7, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 1, Disterheft further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein selection of the at least one external block causes a customizable object to appear in the graphical user interface, [see at least Disterheft: (Figure 2), (Para 0050) “For example, the list may be displayed as a drop-down menu including entries for each trigger event. In some implementations, selecting the type option 223 may cause the user interface 200 to display an additional block or window including the list of trigger events or a drop-down menu of trigger events. The user may select a desired trigger event from the displayed list.”]
However, Disterheft does not teach but Jakobovits does teach:
the customizable object including a login prompt for the third-party application [see at least Jakobovits: (Para 0148) “This information can, for example, maintain a current location within the workspace for a user, which can be used each time that a user logs in to determine the workspace data to display at a display client to which the login is associated”]
Further, 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 workflow automation system (Disterheft) with use of a login (Jakobovits). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the security benefits of a login in a system that exchanges information with third-party applications.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Disterheft (US 20210232992 A1) in view of Rossi (US 20130201107 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Disterheft teaches the limitations of claim 10.
While Disterheft teaches a workflow automation system it does not explicitly teach but Rossi does teach:
The system of claim 10, wherein each expandable group expands in response to a cursor hover to reveal selectable options. [see at least Rossi: (Para 0002) “In mouse input scenarios, a mouse can be used to point to a particular element on the display screen without necessarily activating the element. In this instance, a mouse can be said to "hover" over the element. Many websites rely on the ability of a pointing device, such as a mouse, to "hover" in order to support various user interface constructs. One such construct is an expandable menu. For example, an expandable menu may open when a user hovers the mouse over the element without necessarily activating the element”]
Further, 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 workflow automation system (Disterheft) with a cursor hover to reveal options (Rossi). Applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement yields predictable results. Disterheft teaches a base device, see Disterheft paragraph 41, “Accordingly, the user of the client device 102 may access and interact with the automated workflow application 121 and the user interfaces of the automated workflow application 121 using the display 106 and the input device(s) 107. In some embodiments, the input device(s) 107 include components that are integral to the client device 102. For example, the input device(s) 107 may include a mouse, a keyboard, a trackball device, a microphone, etc”. Rossi teaches it is known in the art to use hovering to reveal options, see Rossi paragraph 2, “Many websites rely on the ability of a pointing device, such as a mouse, to "hover" in order to support various user interface constructs. One such construct is an expandable menu. For example, an expandable menu may open when a user hovers the mouse over the element without necessarily activating the element”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using mouse hovering in the system taught by Disterheft would have yielded predictable results and allowed users to use different inputs to access different user interface elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (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, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights