DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to re-opening prosecution after pre-appeal conference. After consideration of applicant's amendments and/or remarks:
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 15
Step 2A, Prong One. Claims 1, 10, and 15 recite identifying decision points shared between task graphs, each decision point being a node at which a decision is made between multiple next nodes, and merging the graphs based on the identified decision points. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the identifying and merging limitations encompass a person comparing task diagrams, recognizing shared decision locations, and drawing a combined diagram based on those locations. These observations and evaluations fall within the mental-process grouping of abstract ideas. A person can inspect two task diagrams, identify corresponding decision nodes and their alternative successors, and draw a consolidated diagram organized around those nodes. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A Prong Two. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements receive the task graphs, implement the comparison and merger on a computer, and output the resulting graph. Claims 10 and 5 further specify memory, a processor, and stored instructions. Therse elements provide the computing environment for the evaluative procedure. The shared decision point requirement identifies the information used to consolidate the graphs; the claims leave the graph representation and merger implementation unrestricted. The resulting combination therefore uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate it into a practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.04(d((1), 2106.05(a), (f), and (g).
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The instruction storage functions in claims 10 and 15 correspond to “Storing and retrieving information in memory,” a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function identified in MPEP § 2106.05(d), II, item iv. The claims recite that function generically, without a particular memory organization or storage technique. Computer implementation supplies instruction to perform the evaluative procedure under MPEP § 2106.05(f). Receiving task descriptions and outputting the resulting graph and input gathering and result presentation under MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the received graphs supply the information evaluated, the processor performs the comparison and merger, and the output communicates the consolidated graph. The storage and input/output functions server those respective roles without a further technical arrangement. The additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.05(d), I.3 and 2106.05(f)-(g).
Claims 2 and 11
Claims 2 and 11 further recite identifying shared decision points using a machine learning based model. The model is specified by its identification function and supplies the correspondences used by the inherited merger. This amounts to an instruction to perform the identification through machine learning, without a particular model operation or technical arrangement improving the computer or graph processing technology. Considered with the inherited limitations, the added model neither integrates the exception into a practical application nor provides significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(f).
Claim 3 and 12
Claims 3 and 12 further recite identifying shared loops using a machine learning based model and merging the graphs based on those loops. Consolidating task diagrams around identified repeating sequences is an evaluation within the mental process grouping. The model supplies the loop correspondences for that consolidation at a functional level, without specifying a further technical mechanism. The linked identification and merger therefore implement the evaluative procedure and, together with the inherited limitations, neither integrate the exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2), III, and 2106.05(f).
Claims 4 and 13
Claims 4 and 13 further recite determining unacceptable confidence in task membership, requesting confirmation, and identifying shared decision points in response to that confirmation. Assessing uncertainty about task membership is a mental evaluation; the confirmation request gather information used to resolve it. The sequence verifies the task descriptions before their comparison and merger. Considered with the inherited limitations, this conditional evaluation and information gathering nether integrate the exception in to a practical application not provide significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.04(A)(2), III, and 2106.05(f)-(g).
Claims 5, 14, and 16
Claims 5, 14, and 16 further recite receiving user input defining task graphs via task capture. Capture supplies the information analyzed by the inherited comparison and merger. Its generic electronic recording function corresponds to “Electronic recordkeeping,” identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional in MPEP § 2106.05(d), II, computer functions item iii. Receiving the user defined task information is also data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g). The acquisition feeds the same evaluative procedure and, together with the inherited limitations, neither integrates the exception into a practical application nor provides significantly more.
Claims 6 and 17
Claims 6 and 17 further require the captured input to come from different users. This restricts the sources of the task information without changing the operation of capture of the inherited comparison and merger. The added source restriction concerns information gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g). Together with the limitations of claims 5 and 16, respectively, it neither integrates the exception into a practical application not provides significantly more.
Claims 7 and 18
Claims 7 and 18 further require the captured input to come from the same user. This restricts the source of the information defining one or more task graphs without changing the acquisition or graph processing operation. The added source restriction concerns information gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g). Together with the limitations of claims 5 and 16, respectively, it neither integrates the exception into a practical application not provides significantly more.
Claims 8 and 19
Claims 8 and 19 further recite performing the task according to the merged graph using RPA robots. The graph supplies the sequence and alternative followed by the software, while the task and execution mechanism remain unspecified. The added limitation thus broadly instructs software to carry out the consolidated workflow without a further technical operation improving graph construction or robot execution. The ordered combination of graph generation and task execution therefore amounts to applying the workflow result through software automation and neither integrates the exception into a practical application nor provides significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(f).
Claims 9 and 20
Claims 9 and 20 further recite displaying the merged task graph. Display communicated the result of the inherited analysis without a particular interface structure or interaction improving computer operation. This is presentation of the result under MPEP § 2106.05(g). Together with the inherited limitations, the display neither integrates the exception into a practical application not provides significantly more.
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, 5-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al., U.S. PG-Publication No. 2020/0050983 A1 (hereinafter BALASUBRAMANIAN), in view of Ma et al., U.S. PG-Publication No. 2020/0206920 A1 (hereinafter MA).
Claim 1
BALASUBRAMANIAN discloses a computer-implemented method comprising. ¶ 0233: A processor generates a workflow file representing sequentially ordered steps.
BALASUBRAMANIAN discloses receiving a plurality of task graphs each representing a variant of an automatable task. ¶ 0183: Captures “two or more linear workflows each representing a unique variation within the process.” ¶ 0135: Groups workflows for the same business transaction and combines them into a graphical process diagram. ¶ 208: The resulting workflow representation can support automation through a workflow engine.
BALASUBRAMANIAN discloses outputting the merged task graph. ¶ 0183: Displays merged workflows in a “graphical representation” and saves them in workflow formats.
BALASUBRAMANIAN does not expressly disclose identifying similarities one or more decision points shared between the plurality of task graphs, each of the one or more decision points comprising a node at which a decision is made between a plurality of next nodes; and merging the plurality of task graphs into a merged task graph of the automatable task based on the identified one or more decision points.
MA discloses identifying similarities one or more decision points shared between the plurality of task graphs, each of the one or more decision points comprising a node at which a decision is made between a plurality of next nodes. ¶ 0254; FIG. 4: Two enumerated variants share nodes 402a and 402c, then proceed through 402d or 402e before rejoining at 402f. Comparing these paths identifies common context 402c with different immediate successors. Under the stated construction, this is the shared decision location. ¶ 0261: The alternatives involve selecting an existing filename or entering one through keypresses (i.e., establishing alternative task action next nodes).
MA discloses merging the plurality of task graphs into a merged task graph of the automatable task based on the identified one or more decision points. ¶ 0244: Specifies an edge for “each two adjacent nodes” in an input trace. ¶ 0268: Consolidated shared operations while connecting alternative paths through the shared portion. ¶ 0273: “Additional variants are added sequentially.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the common control workflow merging of BALASUBRAMANIAN to incorporate shared node consolidation and successor path construction taught by MA. One or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate this graph construction into BALASUBRAMANIAN, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to eliminate duplicated representations of common operations and the resulting unnecessary graph complexity. MA ¶¶ 0266-0268.
Claim 2
MA discloses identifying one or more decision points shared between the plurality of task graphs comprises identifying the one or more decision points shared between the plurality of task graphs using a machine learning based model. ¶ 0218: Uses an “auto-encoder such as WORD2VEC” to transform events into continuous space vectors. ¶ 0178: Uses autoencoder based metrics to compare events with their surrounding context. ¶ 0163: Computes distances between representations and identifies similar subsequences.
Claim 5
BALASUBRAMANIAN discloses wherein receiving a plurality of task graphs each representing a variant of an automatable task comprises: receiving user input defining one or more of the plurality of task graphs via task capture. ¶ 0183: captures multiple linear workflows, each representing a “unique variation within the process,” for graphical representation and merging. ¶ 0117: The user initiates recording; the recorder starts “capturing the interactions and activities.” ¶ 0132: Typing and clicking activities are combined in sequence to form a workflow. ¶ 0133: Those ordered activities from a “linear workflow,” illustrated as a flow diagram in Figure 7.
Claim 6
BALASUBRAMANIAN discloses wherein receiving user input defining one or more of the plurality of task graphs via task capture comprises: receiving the user input from a plurality of different users. ¶ 0177: Compares workflows by “different users performing a same workflow process.”
Claim 7
BALASUBRAMANIAN discloses wherein receiving user input defining one or more of the plurality of task graphs via task capture comprises: receiving the user input from a same user. ¶ 0132: One individual supplies the typing and clicking sequence. ¶ 0133: That individual’s ordered activities form a workflow diagram.
Claim 8
MA discloses performing the automatable task according to the merged task graph using one or more robotic process automation (RPA) robots. ¶ 0032: Defines a software robots as executable instructions performing task interactions and actions. ¶ 0264: The RPA mode’s graph represents the “aggregation of a given number of variants.” ¶ 0291: After configuration based on recorded streams and model building, an RPA robot executes the applications without human assistance.
Claim 9
BALASUBRAMANIAN discloses wherein outputting the merged task graph comprises: displaying the merged task graph. ¶ 0183: Merged workflows are “displayed in a graphical representation.”
Claims 10-11 and 14
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected utilizing the rationale for claims 1-2 and 5; the claims are directed to a system performing the method.
Claims 15-20
Claims 15-20 are rejected utilizing the rationale for claims 1 and 5-9; the claims are directed to a medium storing instructions corresponding to the method.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALASUBRAMANIAN, in view MA, further in view of Goyal et al., U.S. PG-Publication No. 2022/0147386 A1 (hereinafter GOYAL).
Claim 3
GOYAL discloses identifying similarities one or more decision points shared between the plurality of task graphs comprises identifying one or more loops shared between the plurality of task graphs. ¶ 0075: “A repeating sequence of steps can be considered a loop.” Claim 5: Detects a matching repeating sequence in both recordings’ digital representation.
GOYAL discloses merging the plurality of task graphs into a merged task graph of the automatable task comprises merging the plurality of task graphs into the merged task graph of the automatable task based on the one or more identified loops. Claims 4 and 6: The module merges representations; whether to merge is “based on the matching repeating sequence.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workflow merging operations of BALASUBRAMANIAN-MA to incorporate shared repeating sequence detection and merger control taught by GOYAL. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate that shared loop processing into BALASUBRAMANAIA N-MA, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the number of steps in the merged workflow while preserving loop structure instead of absorbing loop steps in to a branch. GOYAL, ¶ 0092.
MA discloses using a machine learning based model. ¶ 0218: An “auto-encoder such as WROD2VEC” transforms events into continuous space vectors. ¶ 0178: Autoencoder based metrics compare events with surrounding context. ¶ 0217: Contextual modeling improves robustness and accuracy when finding similar events despite noise.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the repeating sequence correspondence operation of BALASUBRAMANAIA N-GOYAL to incorporate the learned event representations and contextual similarity metrics taught by MA. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate that learned comparison in to the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve matching accuracy and robustness despite noisy recorded interactions. MA ¶¶ 0217-0218.
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected utilizing the rationale for claim 3; the claim is directed to a method performed by the system.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALASUBRAMANIAN, in view MA, further in view of Huang et al., U.S. PG-Publication No. 2021/0312324 A1 (hereinafter HUANG).
Claim 4
HUANG discloses determining that a level of confidence that one or more of the plurality of task graphs represent a variant of the automatable task is not acceptable. ¶ 0102: Tests an output against a configurable threshold, including a “confidence level.”
HUANG discloses in response to determining that the level of confidence is not acceptable, requesting user input confirming that the one or more of the plurality of task graphs represent a variant of the automatable task. ¶ 0059: Routes “low confidence predictions” for human review and validation. ¶ 0103: Generates an input interface when feedback is required. ¶ 0104: Receives the user’s feedback.
HUANG discloses wherein identifying similarities one or more decision points shared between the plurality of task graphs comprises identifying the one or more decision points shared similarities between the plurality of task graphs in response to receiving the user input confirming that the one or more of the plurality of task graphs represent a variant of the automatable task. ¶ 0107: Feedback can cause “validation of an output” or its modification. ¶ 0110: Continus processing until completion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task membership determination of BALASUBRAMANIAN-MA to incorporate confidence triggered human validation taught by HUANG. One or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate that validation into BALASUBRAMANIAN-MA, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to obtain more accurate and consistent results for uncertain predictions through human review. HUANG, ¶ 0057.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected utilizing the rationale for claim 4; the claim is directed to a method performed by the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See Ma et al., U.S. PG-Publication No. 2020/0206920 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D MILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3194. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30 CT.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at (571)270-3180. 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.
/FRANK D MILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194 September 10, 2026
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights