Ex Parte StoitsevDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201612179475 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/179,475 07/24/2008 50400 7590 05/26/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Todor Stoitsev UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2058.29lUS1 8202 EXAMINER GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TODOR STOITSEV Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179,475 1 Technology Center 3600 Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and CYNTYHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies SAP AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179475 THE INVENTION Appellant claims a "method and system to manage a business process." Spec. (Title). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system comprising: a memory; a processor coupled to the memory; a workflow engine to provide runtime environment for executing a business process based on a workfl ow model generated using a process modeling application, the workflow model comprising a main task; a monitor to monitor ad-hoc events related to the main task, the ad-hoc events associated with end-user task- management activities; a collector to collect data associated with the ad-hoc events related to the main task; a task pattern generator to generate, using the at least one processor, a task pattern based on the collected data; and a \'l/orkfl O\'l/ model generator to update the \'l/orkflo\'l/ model utilizing the task pattern and execution history of the task pattern, subsequent to executing of the business process based the workflow model. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Taylor US 2003/0233341 Al Dec. 18, 2003 Matsumoto US 2007/0130357 Al June 7, 2007 Macbeth US 2007 /0299795 Al Dec. 27, 2007 Behrendt US 2008/0021751 Al Jan.24,2008 2 Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179475 The following rejections are before us for review. 2 Claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macbeth in view of Behrendt. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macbeth in view of Behrendt and further in view of Matsumoto. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macbeth in view of Behrendt and further in view of Taylor. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 5-21 of the Final Action. 2. Macbeth discloses: In operation, the analyzer component 602, can recognize the common patterns of actions and use 2 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the most recent Patent Office guidance on § 101 found in the May 4, 2016 Memorandum to the Examining Corps, titled "Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant's Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection," and the "July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility," 80 Fed. Reg. 45429 (July 30, 2015), which supplements the "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014 ), and the "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014. 3 Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179475 of resources thereafter bundling the actions and resources together. As well, the analyzer component 602 can employ machine learning and reasoning (MLR) mechanisms to learn what the workflow process entails or should entail. This analysis and generation can be accomplished without a need for a user to explicitly define a system to support a particular workflow. Para. 80 3. Macbeth discloses: At 304, activity information can be received or accessed. Again, this information can be accessed from an activity log or dynamically by monitoring actions in real-time. In another aspect, once the users associated to an activity are identified at 302, the actions and resources accessed by the users can be dynamically monitored. In either case, the activity information can be processed at 306. For example, information can be clustered, stored, and/or indexed with respect to a user, context, state, and/or activity. Para. 48. 4. Macbeth discloses: It is to be understood and appreciated that this determination enables an activity user list to dynamically update with respect to an activity. In other words, as users become available or engage in an activity, a determination can be made of the presence of the user. Accordingly, if another user is available, activity information is received at 304 and the process repeats. This decision block at 308 illustrates the recursive characteristics of the methodology of FIG. 3. Para. 49. 4 Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179475 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-18, and 20 as a group (Appeal Br. 8, 12). We select claim 1 as representative; the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue, As is evident from the above-reproduced portion from the Final Office Action, the Examiner was unable to find evidence that Macbeth discloses generating of a task pattern that has a relationship with a workflow model and a business process in a manner required by claim 1. The Examiner pointed out that Macbeth refers to the generating of a workflow in paragraph 46 and to recognizing common patterns of actions at paragraph 80. The generating of a workflow and the ability to recognize a pattern, however, is not the same as the generating of a task pattern that is used for updating of the workfl ow model that, in tum, is related to a business process that is executed based on the workflow model. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner, however, found, a task pattern generator to generate, using the at least one processor, a task pattern based on the collected data, (ii 46, "If at 208, a determination is made that a workflow does not exist, a workflow can be generated at 210 with respect to the activity") (ii 80, "the analyzer component 602, can recognize the common patterns of actions and use of resources thereafter bundling the actions and resources together. As well, the analyzer component 602 can employ machine learning and reasoning (MLR) mechanisms to learn what the workflow process entails or should entail. This analysis and generation can be accomplished without a need for a user to explicitly define a system to support a particular workflow") (ii 73, "The ad hoc workflow generator can monitor user actions and dynamically create and/or update a workflow as a function of the obtained activity information" and "the ad hoc workflow 5 Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179475 generator can dynamically piece together the workflow that is normally used to accomplish a certain activity or alternatively, locate an activity that might suggest a workflow given the monitored items[.]") (emphasis added). Final Act. 6, 7. We disagree with Appellant. We begin by construing the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 uses functional language, i.e., "a task pattern generator to generate, ... a task pattern based on the collected data." As functional language, we are required to give this language weight only to the extent that the prior art is or is not capable of meeting the limitation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Examiner found that a task pattern generator is disclosed by the analyzer component 602 in Macbeth. (Appeal Br. 6, 7). We find no error with the Examiner's findings here. Our review of Macbeth reveals that component 206 recognizes common patterns of actions, thereafter bundles the actions and resources together, and employs machine learning and reasoning (MLR) mechanisms to learn what the workflow process entails or should entail. (FF. 2). As such, we find that Macbeth is at least capable of generating a task pattern that is used for updating the workfl ow model because at the very least, the MLR learns what the flow process should be, and thus is capable of updating a model to reflect the learned data. Appellant argues that "[t]here is no mention of an 'activity log' in paragraph 68 [of Macbeth] reproduced above. The activity information or the activity log in Macbeth is not being executed and therefore cannot be properly correlated with the 'execution history' of a task pattern, as recited in claim 1." (Reply Br. 7). 6 Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179475 We disagree with Appellant because the Examiner cites to paragraph 48 of Macbeth in the Answer at pages 5-6, which paragraph explicitly discloses an activity log of actions. 3 (Answer 5, 6). We further disagree with Appellant that the "activity log in Macbeth is not being executed" because we find that Macbeth explicitly discloses that the activity log/execution history undergoes a recursive methodology each time a user activity is detected (FF. 4). Because Appellant relies on the argument asserted for claim 1 to show error in the rejection of claims 10-18 and 20, we will sustain the rejection of these claims because Appellant's arguments fail to add anything new to what has already been asserted for claim 1. Likewise, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments as to claim 19 (Appeal Br. 8) wherein Appellant argues that Macbeth "merely includes a general statement that a workflow can be created as a function of the activity information or to dynamically piece together a workflow, which is not a sufficient disclosure of utilizing 'a mapping scheme [that provides] association between ad-hoc events and workflow model entities."' Id. at 13. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that mapping is an association between items. Answer 7. The Examiner then cites to paragraph 48 of Macbeth finding that "clustering is a form of grouping or associating one element with at least one other element." Id. The Examiner finds that Macbeth discloses such clustering occurs between a user, context, state, and/or activity. Id. We find such clustering to constitute association between workflow model entities and activities (ad-hoc events) given that the users 3 The Examiner maps the activity log in Macbeth to the claimed execution history. Answer 5. 7 Appeal2013-009651 Application 12/179475 are entities in the worktlow. Id. As we set forth above, because claim 1 describes the workflow model generator in functional language, we find that Macbeth is at least capable of associating activities/task patterns and users responsible for such activities. We also affirm the rejections of dependent claims 3, 8, and 9 because Appellant has not challenged such with any reasonable specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation