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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 08/23/2022, 04/02/2025, and 09/26/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s response date 03/02/2026, Amending claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12, and 17-18.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 103, will be maintained. The 103 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending claims objections will be withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received on date 03/02/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argue: see remarks pages 11-12
Applicant submits that the claimed invention, recited in claims 1-20, improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, and a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention is present in the specification. The disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. A discussion in the specification identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution. For example, paragraphs 50 and 51 of the specification state ( emphasis added):
…
Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Independent claims 9 and 17, as amended, recite similar features to claim 1 and are patent eligible for similar reasons as claim 1. Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and the claims that depend thereon, are also directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagree:
The Applicant’s Specification titled “WORKFLOW SIMULATION WITH ENVIRONMENT SIMULATION" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others." (Spec. [0044-0045]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and because the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the abstract idea of simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An "additional element" is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase "integration into a practical application" is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation An apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a memory, software application, a processor, AI or ML model a system are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of a “AI, ML, BPMN or a graphical model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “AI, ML, BPMN or a graphical model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 9 and 17 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 9, and 17 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include An apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a memory, software application, a processor, AI or ML model a system.
Examiner asserts that An apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a memory, software application, a processor, AI or ML model a system are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions, (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces," but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components" and display devices.
In addition, fig. 1 of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicants argue: see remarks pages 13-14
Claim 1 is amended at least partly based on some of the features of previously pending
dependent claim 3. With regards to claim 3, the Office Action relies on the additional reference of HUGELMANN. Therefore, Applicant addresses claim 1, as amended, below based on the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on CARLEY and HUGELMANN.
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not teach or suggest the
features recited in amended claim 1.
For example, the cited references do not disclose "the simulator comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a machine learning (ML) model that is generated based on the attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation," as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagree:
Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant is recommended to clarify further the attributes and how does the external system identified from the workflow representation. Carley disclose in [0055] In step 407, software deployment evaluator 102 (simulator 302) simulates a workload based on the created model and the initial workload estimates … the model is created (EN: build)”) wherein the simulator comprises at least one of [[an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a machine learning (ML)]] model that is generated based on the attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation; (Carley [0017], “provides specific details for their industry workload, a model is created to represent a data flow of the selected workflow or the custom workflow as well as represent the transaction rates. A system is provisioned to simulate production usage based on the determined capacity requirements. Furthermore, a workload is simulated based on the created model and the initial workload estimates. The usage patterns in the simulated workload and the usage of the provisioned system are monitored”. Also, see figures 4-7)
Carley disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose at least one of an artificial intelligence (Al) model and a machine learning (ML) model
However, Hugelmann teaches the following limitation:
wherein the simulator comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a machine learning (ML) model that is generated based on the attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation (Emphasis added) (Hugelmann figure 1b [0045], [0047] & [0054], “the machine learning model 133 may be trained to identify entities present within a natural language command received at the conversation simulation application 110. The task of entity detection may include linking attributes to the data values included in a natural language command, thus inferring the corresponding entities and mapping these entities to those included in the knowledge graph”. Also, see [0066]. Examiner point that attributes see [0048-0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carley, to include the feature of at least one AI or ML, as taught by Hugelmann, in order to include at least one of AI or ML with the simulator to enable the simulator to simulate the future value of the input based on at least one AI or ML (Hugelmann figure 1B). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Carley and Hugelmann, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-2, 3-8 are directed toward an apparatus (machine) and claims 9-10, 11-16 is directed toward a method (process). Claims 17-18, and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, claims 1-16 fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 9 and 17 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store a workflow software application; and
a processor configured to identify an external system that passes an input attribute to a process based on a workflow representation of the process;
build a simulator of the external system based on attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation, wherein the simulator comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a machine learning (ML) model that is generated based on the attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation;
simulate, based on the at least one of the Al model and the ML model, future values of the input attribute to be passed to the process by the external system based on the simulator of the external system and a previous workflow simulation of the process performed via a workflow software application; and
execute a new workflow simulation of the process via the workflow software application based on the future values of the input attribute,
wherein output of the new workflow simulation is displayed on a user interface, stored and made accessible to users of a system.
The Applicant’s Specification titled “WORKFLOW SIMULATION WITH ENVIRONMENT SIMULATION" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others." (Spec. [0044-0045]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and because the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the abstract idea of simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-16, 18, and 2-23 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claims 10, and 18) wherein the processor is configured to identify an input to the external system, an output from the external system, and one or more services performed by the external system.
claim 3 (Similarly claims 11, and 19) Cancelled
claim 4 (Similarly claim 12) wherein the processor is configured to build a graphical model for the process that includes a central node that represents a workflow simulation of the process, a plurality of external nodes that represent a plurality of input attributes to the workflow simulation, and edges between the plurality nodes and the central node which represent hops from the plurality of input attributes to the workflow simulation.
claim 5 (Similarly claim 13) wherein the processor is further configured to simulate the future values of the input attribute to be passed to the process by the external system via the simulator based on a number of hops between a node that represents the input attribute in the graphical model and the central node in the graphical model.
claim 6 (Similarly claim 14) wherein the processor is configured to identify the external system based on an interdependence between an input of the external system and an output of the workflow simulation within the graphical model.
claim 7 (Similarly claim 15) wherein the processor is configured to parse a business process model notation (BPMN) model of the workflow representation to identify the external system, an input to the external system, and an output from the external system.
claim 8 (Similarly claims 16 and 20) wherein the processor is further configured to execute the new simulation of the process via the workflow software application based on available future values of another input attribute from another external system of the process.
claim 21 (Similarly claims 22-23) wherein the process is a business process.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 (similarly claims 9, and 17) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. An apparatus, a memory, software application, a processor, a system, AI or ML model
Claim 9. System, a software application, AI or ML model
Claim 17. A computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a system and software application, AI or ML model
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 1 (similarly claims 9 and 17) pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of An apparatus, a computer-readable storage medium, a memory, software application, a processor, AI or ML model a system. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. See Figure 1 of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 9 and 17 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention simulate/forecaste future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-16, and 18, 20-23 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: claims 3, 11, 19, “AI or ML model”. Claims 4 and 12 “a graphical model”. Claims 7 and 15 “business process model notation (BPMN)”. The additional elements of a “AI, ML, BPMN or a graphical model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “AI, ML, BPMN or a graphical model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. These features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 9 and 17. An apparatus, a computer-readable storage medium, a memory, software application, a processor, AI or ML model, a system. Claims 4 and 12 “a graphical model”. Claims 7 and 15 “business process model notation (BPMN)”. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to simulating/forecasting future values of an input attribute to generate a workflow, the workflow may include, but is not limited to a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow, an automobile production workflow, and many others." (Spec. [0044-0045]).
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carley et al. US 2019/0130326 (hereinafter Carley) in view of Hugelmann et al. US 2023/0368103 (hereinafter Hugelmann).
Regarding Claim 1:
An apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store a workflow software application; and (Carley [0017], “industry workflows for a software product are displayed to the customer. A selection of one of these industry workflow is received …. Software product”. Carley [0021], “software deployment evaluator”.)
a processor configured to identify an external system that passes an input attribute to a process based on a workflow representation of the process; (EN: referring back to applicant specification with regard to “an external system”, in [0044-0045], “workflow specification 210 may include, but is not limited to , a credit lending workflow, a contingent labor procurement workflow … an many others … identify a list of external systems (e.g., services)”. EN: the external system could be any system that provide a service. See Carley figures 4-5 [0042-0045], “software deployment evaluator 102 receives a selection of one of the displayed industry workflows or a custom workflow … workflows for credit card service 501, insurance incident 502 and legal matter 503 may be presented to customer 101. Other variations include providing the user the option to select different workflows via the "more" button 504 as well as allowing the customer to submit a customized workflow via the "custom" button 505”.)
build a simulator of the external system based on attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation, (EN: referring back to applicant specification with regard to “a simulator”, in [0049], “simulates output values …. Based on historical actions”. EN: here the simulator could be a forecast based on input data from a user or historical data. See Carley figure 4-6 [0050-0056], “in step 406, software deployment evaluator 102 (provisioner 301) provisions the system to simulate production usage based on the determined capacity requirements. In one embodiment, the initial sizing estimates from customer 101 (based on estimates for the workload) will be used to provision the system to meet the capacity needs of the customer's unique use case and usage patterns. [0055] In step 407, software deployment evaluator 102 (simulator 302) simulates a workload based on the created model and the initial workload estimates … the model is created (EN: build)”) wherein the simulator comprises at least one of [[an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a machine learning (ML)]] model that is generated based on the attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation; (Carley [0017], “provides specific details for their industry workload, a model is created to represent a data flow of the selected workflow or the custom workflow as well as represent the transaction rates. A system is provisioned to simulate production usage based on the determined capacity requirements. Furthermore, a workload is simulated based on the created model and the initial workload estimates. The usage patterns in the simulated workload and the usage of the provisioned system are monitored”. Also, see figures 4-7)
simulate, based on the at least one of the [[AI model and the ML]] model, future values of the input attribute to be passed to the process by the external system based on the simulator of the external system and a previous workflow simulation of the process performed via the workflow software application; and (Carley [0050-0060], “after the simulated workload completes, then the actual capacity requirements of the system can be updated to reflect the usage patterns for the customer specific use case. [0056] In step 408, software deployment evaluator 102 (monitor 303) monitors the usage patterns in the simulated workload as well as monitors the usage of the provisioned system to identify actual system usage. In this manner, software deployment evaluator 102 may identify performance bottlenecks”. Also, see [0065], “determined model or workflow from the previous version of the model or workflow exceeds a threshold”)
execute a new workflow simulation of the process via the workflow software application based on the future values of the input attribute, wherein output of the new workflow simulation is displayed on a user interface, stored and made accessible to users of a system. (Carley figures 4-7 [0064-0069], “software deployment evaluator 102 updates the model based on the monitored user interaction with the system. [0067] In step 705, software deployment evaluator 102 updates the capacity requirements of the system based on the monitored user interaction with the system. [0068] In step 706, software deployment evaluator 102 updates the selected workflow or the custom workflow based on the monitored user interaction with the system. [0069] In this manner, customers 101 will be able to iteratively monitor, size and plan updates as their use case evolves over their usage and growth of the system”.)
Carley disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose at least one of an artificial intelligence (Al) model and a machine learning (ML) model
However, Hugelmann teaches the following limitation:
wherein the simulator comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a machine learning (ML) model that is generated based on the attributes of the external system identified from the workflow representation (Hugelmann figure 1b [0045], [0047] & [0054], “the machine learning model 133 may be trained to identify entities present within a natural language command received at the conversation simulation application 110. The task of entity detection may include linking attributes to the data values included in a natural language command, thus inferring the corresponding entities and mapping these entities to those included in the knowledge graph”. Also, see [0066])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carley, to include the feature of at least one AI or ML, as taught by Hugelmann, in order to include at least one of AI or ML with the simulator to enable the simulator to simulate the future value of the input based on at least one AI or ML (Hugelmann figure 1B). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Carley and Hugelmann, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Carley disclose the apparatus of claim 1,
Carley further teach wherein the processor is configured to identify an input to the external system, (Carley figures 3-5 [0047], “the user may input load …. To software deployment evaluator”. Also, see [0069]) an output from the external system, (Carley figures 3-5 [0069], deploying software into a live production environment”. Also, see [0038], “the workload”.) and one or more services performed by the external system. (EN: see Carley figure 5 element 500-505 display different services performed by the external system”.)
Regarding Claim 3: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 4:
Carley disclose the apparatus of claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Hugelmann, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to build a graphical model for the process that includes a central node that represents a workflow simulation of the process, a plurality of external nodes that represent a plurality of input attributes to the workflow simulation, and edges between the plurality of external nodes and the central node which represent hops from the plurality of input attributes to the workflow simulation. (see Hugelmann figures 1-2 [0051-0055], “The request evaluator 122 traversing the knowledge graph 250 (EN: graphical model) may identify a first node 255a representative of the enterprise workflow (EN: central node) "AssignSource." As shown in FIG. 2B, the first node 255a corresponding to the enterprise workflow "AssignSource" may be connected by a directed edge to a second node 255b representative of the data object "PurchaseRequisitionltem,"(EN: plurality of nodes) which may in turn be connected by a directed edge (EN: edge) to a third node 255c representative of the operation "UpdatePurchaseRequisitionitem." [0052] The graphical relationship between the first node 255a, the second node 255b, and the third node 255c may indicate that executing the enterprise workflow of the first node 255a requires performing the operation of the third node 255c on the data object of the second node 255d”. Also, EN: attribute see [0048-0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carley, to include the feature of graphical model, as taught by Hugelmann, in order to build a graphical model that include a central node, plurality of edges and hops that represent the workflow data (Hugelmann figures 1-2). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Carley and Hugelmann, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 5:
Carley in view of Hugelmann disclose the apparatus of claim 4,
Hugelmann further teach wherein the processor is further configured to simulate the future values of the input attribute to be passed to the process by the external system via the simulator based on a number of hops between a node that represents the input attribute in the graphical model and the central node in the graphical model. (see Hugelmann figures 1-2 EN: the figures disclose and clearly show a number of hops between a nodes [0051-0055], “The request evaluator 122 traversing the knowledge graph 250 (EN: graphical model) may identify a first node 255a representative of the enterprise workflow (EN: central node) "AssignSource." As shown in FIG. 2B, the first node 255a corresponding to the enterprise workflow "AssignSource" may be connected by a directed edge to a second node 255b representative of the data object "PurchaseRequisitionltem,"(EN: plurality of nodes) which may in turn be connected by a directed edge (EN: edge) to a third node 255c representative of the operation "UpdatePurchaseRequisitionitem." [0052] The graphical relationship between the first node 255a, the second node 255b, and the third node 255c may indicate that executing the enterprise workflow of the first node 255a requires performing the operation of the third node 255c on the data object of the second node 255d”. Also, EN: attribute see [0048-0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carley, to include the feature of graphical model, as taught by Hugelmann, in order to build a graphical model that include a central node, plurality of edges and hops that represent the workflow data to simulate the future values (Hugelmann figures 1-2). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Carley and Hugelmann, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 6:
Carley in view of Hugelmann disclose the apparatus of claim 4,
Hugelmann further teach wherein the processor is configured to identify the external system based on an interdependence between an input of the external system and an output of the workflow simulation within the graphical model. (see Hugelmann figures 1-2 EN: [0051-0055], “The request evaluator 122 traversing the knowledge graph 250 (EN: graphical model) may identify a first node 255a representative of the enterprise workflow (EN: central node) "AssignSource." As shown in FIG. 2B, the first node 255a corresponding to the enterprise workflow "AssignSource" may be connected by a directed edge to a second node 255b representative of the data object "PurchaseRequisitionltem,"(EN: plurality of nodes) which may in turn be connected by a directed edge (EN: edge) to a third node 255c representative of the operation "UpdatePurchaseRequisitionitem.". EN: also see that disclose ethe interdependence [0052] The graphical relationship between the first node 255a, the second node 255b, and the third node 255c may indicate that executing the enterprise workflow of the first node 255a requires performing the operation of the third node 255c on the data object of the second node 255d”. Also, EN: attribute see [0048-0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carley, to include the feature of graphical model, as taught by Hugelmann, in order to build a graphical model that include a central node, plurality of edges and hops that represent the workflow data to simulate the future values (Hugelmann figures 1-2). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Carley and Hugelmann, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 8:
Carley disclose the apparatus of claim 1,
Carley further teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute the new workflow simulation of the process via the workflow software application based on available future values of another input attribute from another external system of the process. (Carley figures 4-7 [0064-0069], “software deployment evaluator 102 updates the model based on the monitored user interaction with the system. [0067] In step 705, software deployment evaluator 102 updates the capacity requirements of the system based on the monitored user interaction with the system. [0068] In step 706, software deployment evaluator 102 updates the selected workflow or the custom workflow based on the monitored user interaction with the system. [0069] In this manner, customers 101 will be able to iteratively monitor, size and plan updates as their use case evolves over their usage and growth of the system”.)
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 8 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 8 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 21:
(New) Carley in view of Hugelmann disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the process is a business process. (Carley [0052-0053], “business processes … workflow … the business workflow”.)
Regarding Claim 22:
Claim 22 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 21 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 22 is rejected under the same rational as claim 21.
Regarding Claim 23:
Claim 23 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 21 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 23 is rejected under the same rational as claim 21.
Claims 7 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carley et al. US 2019/0130326 (hereinafter Carley) in view of Hugelmann et al. US 2023/0368103 (hereinafter Hugelmann) in view of Bocciarelli, Paolo, et al. "BPMN-based business process modeling and simulation." 2019 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). IEEE, 2019. (hereinafter Bocciarelli).
Regarding Claim 7:
Carley in view of Hugelmann disclose the apparatus of claim 1,
Carley further teach wherein the processor is configured to parse [[a business process model notation (BPMN)]] model of the workflow representation to identify the external system, an input to the external system, and an output from the external system. (Carley figures 3-5 [0047], “the user may input load …. To software deployment evaluator”. Also, see [0069]. Carley figures 3-5 [0069], deploying software into a live production environment”. Also, see [0038], “the workload”. EN: see Carley figure 5 element 500-505 display different services performed by the external system”.)
Carley disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose parse a business process model notation (BPMN) model
However, Bocciarelli teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is configured to parse a business process model notation (BPMN) model of the workflow representation to identify the external system, an input to the external system, and an output from the external system. (Bocciarelli page 1439-01440, “organizational desing … application development … the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) …. Graphical”. Also, see figure 3 in page 1445 and related information directed to BPMN and simulation”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carley, to include the feature of a business process model notation, as taught by Brocciarelli, in order to parse a business process model notation (BPMN) model of the workflow representation to identify different information (Brocciarelli page 1445). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Carley and Brocciarelli, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 7 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wetter, Michael. "A view on future building system modeling and simulation." Building performance simulation for design and operation. Routledge, 2019. 631-656.
Bocciarelli, Paolo, et al. "BPMN-based business process modeling and simulation." 2019 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). IEEE, 2019.
Jezewski US 2022/0414492: Additional solution automation & interface analysis implementations.
Wang et al. US 2022/0207059: Smart data warehouse for cloud-based reservoir simulation.
Cella et al. US 2022/0197306: Job parsing in robot fleet resource configuration.
Arnold et al. US 2021/0133162: Generation and management of an artificial intelligence (AI) model documentation throughout its life cycle.
Lee WO 2020/141882: Explainable artificial intelligence modeling and simulation system and method.
Cmielowski et al. US 2017/0364352: Release cycle optimization based on significant features values simulation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624