DETAILED ACTION
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 a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-16 as originally filed on February 4, 2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/2/2022 and 10/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
Claim 10:
an information extraction module that extracts all significant syntactic. . .
a process model generation module that generates process models of procedures. . .
Claim 11:
a preprocessing unit comprising a non-text processing unit that separates...
a text processing unit that extracts structural properties…
an extended natural language processing (NLP) unit that applies existing NLP technologies utilizing public NLP tools…
an information extraction unit that extracts all significant syntactic and semantic information…
Claim 12:
a first NLP unit for tokenization...
a second NLP unit for part-of-speech…
a third NLP unit that detects and corrects…
Claim 13:
a semantic element extraction unit that identifies any significant word...
a paragraph type classification unit that identifies each paragraph…
a step component identification unit that detects multiple optional components…
Claim 14:
a conversion unit that represents each paragraph of the procedures...
a generation unit that provides final BPMN-based process models…
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above listed claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that no corresponding structure is described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation (see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below).
Since no corresponding structure has been outlined in the specification for the aforementioned limitations which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the following interpretations have hereby been given to these limitations:
The following terms have been interpreted as one or more computer processors:
an information extraction module
a process model generation module
a preprocessing unit
a text processing unit
an extended natural language processing (NLP) unit
an information extraction unit
a first NLP unit
a second NLP unit
a third NLP unit
a semantic element extraction unit
a paragraph type classification unit
a step component identification unit
a conversion unit
a generation unit
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for generating process of plant procedures.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 10 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “performing an information extraction stage that extracts all significant syntactic and semantic information from procedures; and performing a process model generation stage that generates process of the procedures utilizing the syntactic and semantic information extracted, wherein the information extraction stage and the process model generation stage are performed sequentially” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (model of claim 1; system, models, module of claim 10) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-16 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) 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 claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (model of claim 1; system, models, module of claim 10). The model of claim 1; system, models, module of claim 10, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the model of claim 7, 9-10, 14 and 16; system in claims 11-16; models in claim 7, 9, 14 and 16; module of claim 11 and 14; POS tag in claims 2-4, 6, 12-13; token in claim 2-3, 6, 12-13; lexical database in claims 3 and 12; syntactic tags and semantic tags in claim 4; parse tree tags in claim 6 and 13; NLP in claims 2-3, 11-12, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Diedrich et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220270146 - hereinafter Diedrich).
Re. claim 1, Diedrich discloses:
A method to generate process models of plant procedures, comprising:
performing an information extraction stage that extracts all significant syntactic and semantic information from procedures; and [Diedrich; ¶29 shows extraction of data to build a model].
performing a process model generation stage that generates process models of the procedures utilizing the syntactic and semantic information extracted, [Diedrich; ¶28-¶29 shows the generation of the model utilizing syntactic and semantic information extracted].
wherein the information extraction stage and the process model generation stage are performed sequentially. [Diedrich; ¶28-¶29 shows steps are performed in sequence as model is generated from the extracted information].
Re. claim 2, Diedrich further discloses:
The method of The method of wherein the information extraction stage comprises,
a first stage that preprocesses input procedure documents; [Diedrich; ¶59 shows pre-process elements such as “the images and the annotations are pre-processed and standardized. For example, an image may be normalized before the image is passed to the model. The pre-processing may include, for example, the images that have been annotated or that the image data and annotations have been reviewed. The standardization may include, for example, the results in a quality uniform group of images or annotations. The images, the annotations or the images with annotations may be provided in the marketplace by multiple sources, such as image providers or image sources. The images and the annotations may be pre-processed and standardized together or separately. For instance, image and paired annotations from multiple image providers and annotators are pre-processed as a single consistent model training dataset”].
a second stage that applies existing NLP technologies to text paragraphs returned from the first stage and corrects any misinterpreted NLP results of POS tags and parse trees of tokens; and [Diedrich; ¶32 shows correction performed such as “when a transaction is written into a ledger, there may be a mechanism to ensure all the records are synchronized and if the blockchain network detects an error, the error may be immediately corrected”].
a third stage that performs semantic element extraction, paragraph type classification, and action step component identification for each text paragraph of procedures utilizing the results of the first and the second stages. [Diedrich; ¶29 shows extraction of data to build a model].
Re. claim 10,
System of claim 10 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1.
Re. claim 11, Diedrich further discloses:
wherein the information extraction module comprises,
a preprocessing unit comprising a non-text processing unit that separates out images and tables in input procedure documents and a text processing unit that extracts structural properties and rich text features for each text paragraph of input procedure documents; [Diedrich; ¶59 shows pre-process elements such as “the images and the annotations are pre-processed and standardized. For example, an image may be normalized before the image is passed to the model. The pre-processing may include, for example, the images that have been annotated or that the image data and annotations have been reviewed. The standardization may include, for example, the results in a quality uniform group of images or annotations. The images, the annotations or the images with annotations may be provided in the marketplace by multiple sources, such as image providers or image sources. The images and the annotations may be pre-processed and standardized together or separately. For instance, image and paired annotations from multiple image providers and annotators are pre-processed as a single consistent model training dataset”].
an extended natural language processing (NLP) unit that applies existing NLP technologies utilizing public NLP tools for each text paragraph returned from the preprocessing unit and corrects any misinterpreted NLP results; and [Diedrich; ¶32 shows correction performed such as “when a transaction is written into a ledger, there may be a mechanism to ensure all the records are synchronized and if the blockchain network detects an error, the error may be immediately corrected”].
an information extraction unit that extracts all significant syntactic and semantic information, which includes semantic elements, paragraph types, and step components, for each text paragraph utilizing preprocessing and extended NLP results. [Diedrich; ¶29 shows extraction of data to build a model].
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich in view of Storck et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220100643 - hereinafter Storck).
Re. claim 3, Diedrich teaches the method of Claim 2.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Storck teaches:
wherein to detect and correct the misinterpreted NLP results of POS tags and parse trees of tokens at the second stage, pattern-based built-in rules integrated with a lexical database are utilized. [Storck; ¶26 shows detection/identification of invalid commonalities and then adjust].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Storck in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 6, Diedrich teaches the method of Claim 2.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Storck teaches:
wherein the step component identification at the third stage comprises detecting multiple optional components for each paragraph of an action step type, other than two components of action verb(s) and target object(s), utilizing POS tags, semantic element tags, and parse tree tags according to hierarchical structuring of tokens. [Storck; ¶26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Storck in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 12, Diedrich teaches the system of Claim 11.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Storck teaches:
wherein the extended NLP unit comprises,
a first NLP unit for tokenization, sentence splitting, and lemmatization; a second NLP unit for part-of-speech (POS) tagging for each token and hierarchical structuring of tokens for each sentence; and a third NLP unit that detects and corrects any misinterpreted NLP results from outputs of the second NLP unit, utilizing pattern-based built-in rules integrated with a lexical database. [Storck; ¶26 shows detection/identification of invalid commonalities and then adjust].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Storck in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich in view of Kwatra et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220180865 - hereinafter Kwatra).
Re. claim 4, Diedrich teaches the method of Claim 2.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Kwatra teaches:
wherein the semantic element extraction at the third stage is performed in combined manner, by looking up instances of words included in a predefined ontology each associated with a semantic type; and [Kwatra; ¶26 shows “configured to determine one or more topics in phrases associated with the user and received from computer system 220. Topic analysis is a natural language processing (NLP) technique that allows software applications 204 to automatically extract meaning from texts by identifying recurrent themes or topics. Software applications 204 may analyze text and/or audio versions of the phrases. Software applications 204 can use and/or employ speech-to-test software for converting the verbal/audio phrases to text. Software applications 204 can employ various natural language processing techniques to determine the one or more topics present in the received phrases. Software applications 204 can be integrated with and/or employ a natural language processing (NLP) model 212 to determine a topic. Software applications 204 and/or NLP model 212 can perform semantic and synaptic content analysis via a tone analyzer and keyword extraction to determine a topic in the phrases”].
by pattern-based built-in rules described with POS tags, syntactic tags and elements, pre-found semantic tags and elements, and the resulting semantic types. [Kwatra; ¶26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kwatra in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 5, Diedrich teaches the method of Claim 2.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Kwatra teaches:
wherein the paragraph type classification at the third stage comprises identifying each paragraph into one of predefined types classified into three groups, a first group of action step types each including two components of action verb(s) and target object(s), a second group of types each relatively more relevant to an action step than types belong to a third group, and a third group of types each relatively less relevant to an action step than the types belong to a second group. [Kwatra; ¶26 shows “configured to determine one or more topics in phrases associated with the user and received from computer system 220. Topic analysis is a natural language processing (NLP) technique that allows software applications 204 to automatically extract meaning from texts by identifying recurrent themes or topics. Software applications 204 may analyze text and/or audio versions of the phrases. Software applications 204 can use and/or employ speech-to-test software for converting the verbal/audio phrases to text. Software applications 204 can employ various natural language processing techniques to determine the one or more topics present in the received phrases. Software applications 204 can be integrated with and/or employ a natural language processing (NLP) model 212 to determine a topic. Software applications 204 and/or NLP model 212 can perform semantic and synaptic content analysis via a tone analyzer and keyword extraction to determine a topic in the phrases”. Examiner interprets the following to require one of the three groups as the claim states and shown with emphasis “paragraph type classification at the third stage comprises identifying each paragraph into one of predefined types classified into three groups, a first group of…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kwatra in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich in view of Barletta et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20140282366 - hereinafter Barletta).
Re. claim 7, Diedrich teaches the method of Claim 1.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Barletta teaches:
wherein the process model generation stage comprises,
a sub-stage of representing each paragraph of the procedures into one or more BPMN elements and their properties utilizing the syntactic and semantic information extracted; and [Barletta; ¶27-¶31 shows use of BPMN and information extracted]
a sub-stage of generating final BPMN-based process models of procedures by integrating and reconstructing the BPMN elements. [Barletta; ¶27-¶35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Barletta in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 8, Diedrich in view of Barletta teaches the method of Claim 7.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Barletta teaches:
wherein for each paragraph classified into the first group of action step types, the paragraph itself or its action clause is represented into individual BPMN element of activities, events or sequence flows, [Barletta; ¶27-¶35].
wherein its conditional clause is represented into individual BPMN elements of gateways or events, and [Barletta; ¶37 shows “Microinstructions 110 specified by the Microprograms 132, no BPMN processing occurs at runtime, all conditional code has been resolved during compiling phase such that the only conditional code is runtime state conditionals”].
wherein for each paragraph classified into the second or the third group is represented into BPMN element that is associated or attached to the individual BPMN element instantiated for a paragraph classified into the first group of action step types. [Barletta; ¶27-¶35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Barletta in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9, Diedrich in view of Barletta teaches the method of Claim 7.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Barletta teaches:
integrating the individual BPMN elements instantiated for paragraphs of action step types by connecting each pair of them with a sequence flow based on their precedence, split, or referencing relation; and [Barletta; ¶30 shows the sequence aspect].
reconstructing, after the integration, the integrated BPMN-based process models of procedures by decomposing or combining the BPMN elements. [Barletta; ¶34-¶36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Barletta in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 14, Diedrich teaches the system of Claim 10.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Barletta teaches:
wherein the process model generation module comprises, a conversion unit that represents each paragraph of the procedures into one or more BPMN elements and their properties utilizing the syntactic and semantic information extracted; and [Barletta; ¶27-¶31 shows use of BPMN and information extracted]
a generation unit that provides final BPMN-based process models of procedures by integrating and reconstructing the BPMN elements. [Barletta; ¶27-¶35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Barletta in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 15, Diedrich in view of Barletta teaches the system of Claim 14.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Barletta teaches:
wherein the conversion unit represents some of procedure paragraphs into individual BPMN elements of flow objects or sequence flows and represents rest of procedure paragraphs into BPMN elements that are associated or attached to the individual BPMN elements. [Barletta; ¶27-¶35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Barletta in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 16, Diedrich in view of Barletta teaches the system of Claim 14.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Barletta teaches:
wherein the generation unit integrates individual BPMN elements, instantiated for procedure paragraphs, by connecting each pair of them with a sequence flow based on their precedence, split, or referencing relation; and then reconstructs the integrated BPMN process models of procedures by decomposing or combining the BPMN elements. [Barletta; ¶34-¶36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Barletta in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich in view of Kwatra in view of Storck.
Re. claim 13, Diedrich teaches the system of Claim 11.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Kwatra teaches:
wherein the information extraction unit comprises,
a semantic element extraction unit that identifies any significant word(s) of token(s) each to be tagged with one of predefined types utilizing ontology lookup and pattern- based built-in rules; [Kwatra; ¶26].
a paragraph type classification unit that identifies each paragraph into one of predefined paragraph types classified into three groups, a first group of action step types each including two components of action verb(s) and target object(s), a second group of types each relatively more relevant to an action step than the types belong to a third group, and a third group of types each relatively less relevant to an action step than the types belong to a second group; and [Kwatra; ¶26 shows “configured to determine one or more topics in phrases associated with the user and received from computer system 220. Topic analysis is a natural language processing (NLP) technique that allows software applications 204 to automatically extract meaning from texts by identifying recurrent themes or topics. Software applications 204 may analyze text and/or audio versions of the phrases. Software applications 204 can use and/or employ speech-to-test software for converting the verbal/audio phrases to text. Software applications 204 can employ various natural language processing techniques to determine the one or more topics present in the received phrases. Software applications 204 can be integrated with and/or employ a natural language processing (NLP) model 212 to determine a topic. Software applications 204 and/or NLP model 212 can perform semantic and synaptic content analysis via a tone analyzer and keyword extraction to determine a topic in the phrases”. Examiner interprets the following to require one of the three groups as the claim states and shown with emphasis “paragraph type classification at the third stage comprises identifying each paragraph into one of predefined types classified into three groups, a first group of…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kwatra in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Diedrich doesn’t teach, Storck teaches:
a step component identification unit that detects multiple optional components for each paragraph of an action step type, other than two components of action verb(s) and target object(s), utilizing POS tags, semantic element tags, and parse tree tags according to hierarchical structuring of tokens. [Storck; ¶26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Storck in the system of Diedrich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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 can be reached at 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights