DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/18/2026.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-21 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 3, 7, 12 and 16 are newly canceled.
Claim Interpretation – Optional Limitations
Concerning claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 21: Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see MPEP § 2103.I.C.). Here, the claim(s) includes/include language that makes/make the step(s) optional but does/do not require it/them by including an “in response to” condition without positively reciting a step in which the condition is actually met (as opposed to optionally met).
Claim 1 contain a two-pronged, mutually exclusive limitations. Depending on the evaluation, the method follows one of two paths: a first set of step(s) is followed if a threshold of activities match, or a second set of step(s) is followed if they do not match. Because only one of these two outcomes is required, the claim present two optional prongs.
Because only one path is required, the examiner fully addresses the second path, which occurs when the threshold of activities fail to match.
Optional limitations in the first path, in the independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 6, 8, 9 and 21, may be fully addressed, partially addressed, or not addressed at all below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the analysis includes optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP)”. However, since claim 1, on which claim 21 depends, already mentions using “using optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP)”, it unclear what this limitation adds, if anything, to the scope of claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) adds nothing to concepts in claim 1. Correction required.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam; Chloe et al. (hereinafter Adam – US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols; Matt (hereinafter Nichols – US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar; Archana et al. (hereinafter Sekar – US 20230208972 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Adam teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
capturing a plurality of workflow activities input by a first user in a predetermined sequential order on a first user device (Session action sequences [workflow activities input by a first user in a predetermined sequential order] are tracked for UI sessions [capturing a plurality of workflow activities input by a user], ¶ 125. Sessions are on user devices, like mobile devices and desktop computer, ¶¶ 47 and 96)
by causing a task mining agent to be executed on the first user device; (determining the adequate pattern/prediction includes tracking user inputs, ¶ 88, including mining frequent patterns, ¶¶ 11-12 [task mining agent], fig. 1)
[…] analyze the captured plurality of workflow activities to determine whether the captured plurality of workflow activities correspond to at least one predetermined workflow process, (“In step 1602, user experience system 104, through gold standard component 156 in an embodiment, mines frequent patterns based on the training database or other stores of historical session usage. Each action is recorded in the UI sessions by input tracking component. Sessions action sequences are compared with action lists from other sessions of the user and sessions of other users. This identifies subsequences that arise frequently in the training database, identifying frequent patterns. A subsequence can be identified if all of its UI actions are included in the session, in the same order, with no constraint concerning the number of actions between two consecutive items”, ¶ 125. This describes a process that analyzes actions in a current session [analyze the captured plurality of workflow activities] and uses frequent pattern mining and sequential pattern mining—proven data mining methods—to identify standard or "gold standard" workflows from a user experience database [to determine whether the captured plurality of workflow activities correspond to at least one predetermined workflow process], ¶ 125. Further concerning the gold standards, they are reflective of workflows. E.g., Adam states “In some circumstances, there may be high-quality usage practices of interacting with a user interface and software workflows to achieve targeted results, otherwise known as gold standards. Current systems do not allow for identifying, understanding sharing, or leveraging user interface and software workflow gold standards individually or across users”, ¶ 6. As reflected in this statement, a gold standard workflow represents a highly effective and proven sequence of actions and practices for achieving a desired outcome with software. The statement defines these standards as "high-quality usage practices of interacting with a user interface and software workflows to achieve targeted results", see ¶ 6)
the at least one predetermined workflow process including a first workflow process; (e.g., one or more steps in a workflow task, ¶ 44)
generating a first user interface (UI) shortcut to a predicted next workflow activity in the first workflow process in response to evaluating the results of the analysis and determining that at least a predetermined threshold number of the captured plurality of workflow activities match a plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process, (this limitation is not entirely taught by Adam, but is optional, and not addressed in this mapping)
wherein the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process are different from one another, (The captured user session actions are described as including actions, e.g., [a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, a, b, c] or [a, m, l, e, b, f, e, f, a, a, b, c], ¶ 126. Given the user session represented by the list of actions, e.g., [a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, a, b, c], it is an undeniable fact that at least some of the actions are different from one another. This is because the list contains multiple distinct action types: 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', and 'h'. The presence of just one type of action, such as 'a', alongside a different action type, such as 'b', is enough to prove that not all the actions are the same. Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that these are only sequence examples, ¶ 180, and any combination of different actions is intended by the description.)
wherein the first UI shortcut is generated as a bookmark configured to: cause the first workflow process to resume in response to a determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process; (this limitation is not taught by Adam, but is optional, and not addressed in this mapping)
generating a second user interface (UI) shortcut to a predicted external task that does not correspond to the first workflow process […], wherein the predicted next workflow activity and the predicted external task are different from one another (the limitation of generating a second UI shortcut is optional, but is still taught by Adam, and is the selected branch for optional limitations of generating a first UI short or second UI shortcut. The determination of whether user actions are associated to gold standard [workflow] is made, ¶ 101. At 210, the system predicts next user action based on the number of factors, including experience level and historic action sequences, Abstract and ¶¶ 72 and 125 and fig. 2, and the prediction of next action is influenced by the gold standard, ¶¶ 136 and 147. Because the gold standards may be different based on a number of criteria, including experience level, ¶¶ 124 and 145, the shortcut generated can be to a predicted external task that does not correspond to the first workflow process, wherein the predicted next workflow activity and the predicted external task are different from one another, when one gold standard is selected over another gold standard, and includes different actions, e.g., more advanced actions/options, e.g., see ¶ 80)
embedding the first UI shortcut in the first workflow process for display on the first user device; (this limitation is optional, but is still taught by Adam. the prediction influences what the features of the next adapted user interface should be output, e.g., a single button or icon to the one most likely to be needed next, ¶¶ 72 and 83, and the output is presented [embedding the first UI shortcut…for display] at 216, as “dynamic shortcuts”, ¶ 77, and so the user discovers features in the software at the right moment [e.g., sequence and experience level], ¶ 80)
and displaying the first workflow process in the display of the first device and automatically populating uncompleted portions of the first workflow process in response to determining that the first UI shortcut has been selected. (this limitation is not taught by Adam, but is optional, and not addressed in this mapping)
Adam does not appear to expressly teach, but Nichols teaches:
that the analysis is using optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP) (a workflow management service that includes a Natural Language Processing module that communicates with an OCR service to receive images as input and convert them to readable text for input into the NLP module, ¶ 31 and fig. 2).
Accordingly, 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 method of Adam to include that the analysis is using optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP), as taught by Nichols.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the processing capabilities of the method with regards to recognizing different types of inputs, including, natural language inputs and image inputs, as in workflow management systems known in the prior art, Nichols ¶ 31.
As mentioned above, Adam teaches a determination of whether user actions are associated to gold standard [workflow] is made, ¶ 101. However, Adam-Nichols does not appear to expressly teach, but Sekar teaches:
that the generating of the second UI is in response to evaluating the results of the analysis and determining that at least the predetermined threshold number of the captured plurality of workflow activities do not match the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process, (A method that analyzes a plurality of actions taken by a user to automatically discover an optimized process, wherein the optimized process includes a sequence of actions having a threshold number of matches compared to the actions taken by the user, Abstract and ¶ 103. Here, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that a sequence different from a first possible sequence is selected based on the match threshold not being met for the first sequence not being met [do not match the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process]).
Accordingly, 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 method of Adam to include that the generating of the second UI is in response to evaluating the results of the analysis and determining that at least the predetermined threshold number of the captured plurality of workflow activities do not match the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process, as taught by Sekar.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to determine association/relationship between the sets of actions and a most efficient sequence (“gold standard”) in a known and effective fashion, Sekar Abstract and ¶ 103 and Adam ¶ 101, to ensure Adam’s goal of identifying the most efficient workflows, Adam ¶ 65 and 101, and Sekar ¶ 51.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
wherein the task mining agent identifies tasks internal to a context of at least the first workflow process (tasks are predicted based on a current experience level groups [identifies tasks internal to a context of at least the first workflow process], as discussed above and ¶ 86)
and tasks external to the context of at least the first workflow process, (the groupings are updated [tasks external to the context of at least the first workflow process] over time, ¶ 53)
wherein the second UI shortcut is a selectable shortcut configured to be selected (selectable buttons/icons, Abstract and ¶¶ 72 and 125 and fig. 2)
by contact on a touch-sensitive portion of the display of the first device while displayed thereon. (the buttons interactable by touch on a touch user interface, ¶¶ 96, 112 and 116)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
comprising: using the tasks external to the context of at least the first workflow process to build a corpus of second workflow activities for widgets, applications, and pages, outside a current context of the first workflow process, wherein the second workflow activities correspond to a determined second predetermined workflow process; (User experience learning component 142 learns and groups individuals across all of the various software applications and over time, grouping users in same experience group [e.g., experience group different than the one discussed in claim 1 […second workflow activities correspond to a determined second predetermined workflow process], within an application suite [corpus of second workflow activities for widgets, applications, and pages], ¶ 54. A second user experience, or set of features, for this group is considered a corpus including widgets, applications and pages, because the set of applications include a number of screens [pages] and buttons [widgets], ¶ 44.)
capturing additional workflow activities input by the first user on the first user device; (activity input for a second experience level is similar to that explained above for claim 1, ¶¶ 60, 65, 68-69 and fig. 2)
analyzing the additional workflow activities to determine whether the additional workflow activities correspond to at least one predetermined workflow process; (activity analyzes for a second experience level is similar to that explained above for claim 1, Abstract and ¶¶ 61-62, 96-99)
in response to a determination that the additional workflow activities correspond to the second workflow process, generating a supplemental UI shortcut to a predicted next workflow activity in the second workflow process; (features [supplemental UI shortcut] determined for a second experience level are different, based on experience and other factors, as explained above for claim 1)
and embedding the supplemental UI shortcut in the second workflow process for display on the first user device. (features [supplemental UI shortcut] displayed [embedd[ed]] for a second experience level are different, based on experience and other factors, as explained above for claim 1)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Adam teaches:
wherein the determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process is based on detection of a predetermined condition being met, wherein the predetermined condition includes the first user entering text into a search bar, wherein the entered text is determined to not have at least a predetermined threshold degree of similarity with the captured plurality of workflow activities (this limitation is optional, and not addressed here.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caesar; Fredrik et al. (hereinafter Caesar – US 20130238384 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
wherein the plurality of workflow activities are captured by a business process model […], wherein the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process are activities that impact business outcomes. (the adequate pattern for experience level is determined using a determination component and/or learning component, ¶ 71, user experience is determined by user experience determination component, ¶ 61, which using machine learning, ¶¶ 10, 53 and 71. For users and stakeholders, e.g., employers, ¶ 63, these systems and methods provide comprehensive benefits by offering a faster, more ergonomic, and highly personalized UI that improves workflow, increases enjoyment, and enhances results for the user, while simultaneously boosting productivity, safety, morale, and financial efficiency in various fields [business outcomes], ¶ 152. This paragraph implies a “business process model” because the described "user-specific optimizations" and improved UI workflows represent unique, personalized, and traceable user journeys ("corpuses") that directly map to specific business activities (e.g., manufacturing uptime, healthcare, efficiency). Note that in ¶ 63, an “employer” implies a business because the act of hiring, paying, and controlling an employee is a commercial or organizational activity designed to achieve specific goals, such as producing goods or providing services.)
Adam-Nichols-Sekar does not appear to expressly teach, but Caesar teaches:
that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model” (a BPMN tool is Barium's product Barium Live, which is designed to help users with process management. With Barium Live, users can compose process steps, define business rules and exceptions, model process flows using BPMN, execute process models efficiently, and support interaction with running processes via personalized graphical user interfaces or spaces, presented on a user terminal such as e.g. a PC, a PDA or a smart phone, ¶ 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model”, as taught by Caesar.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the functions of Adam-Sekar using a known and effective tool, namely, a BPMN tool, for process management and generating personalize interfaces, Caesar ¶ 4.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao; Wen et al. (hereinafter Yao – US 20170161337 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Adam does not appear to expressly teach:
wherein the first UI shortcut is generated based on a continuous bag of words (CBOW) model or a skip-gram model. (this limitation is not taught by Adam, but is optional, and not addressed in this mapping).
Adam-Sekar-Gupta does not appear to expressly teach, but Yao teaches:
wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities. (a method for identifying a stored ordered sequences from a series of user interactions, Abstract and ¶¶ 20-21, wherein a number of constraints can be used to guide identification of the sequence [mining process], e.g., as specified by a user, ¶ 15, including logical constraints that include “In-between item item/event number between” constraints, which means that the identified sequence have to have less than n items/events between a first input event α and a later event α-k. .
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities, as taught by Yao.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the scalability of the applying constraints that are appropriate to different types of sequence implementations, Yao ¶¶ 20 and 63.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blatz; John L. et al. (hereinafter Blatz – US 20200379727 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Adam further teaches:
wherein the predicted next workflow activity in the first workflow process comprises an identified collection of data associated with the first user being added to an application displayed on the first user device, (this limitation is optional, but is taught by Adam. The most probable next actions of the user presented as options [identified collection of data associated with the first user] on the user interface, ¶ 45. the user interface is adapted [added to an application displayed on the first user device], ¶ 135.)
and comprising: in response to a determination that the first UI shortcut is selected, displaying the application in the display of the first device (this limitation is optional, but is taught by Adam. when a dynamic shortcut is selected as the next action, the adapted user interface displays the shortcut on the user interface/application, ¶¶ 11 and 75 and fig. 14)
Adam doesn’t teach:
wherein the first UI shortcut is added to a predetermined list of temporary bookmarks that are each based on allowing continuation of a different unfinished workflow activity of a workflow process (this limitation is optional, and not addressed here.)
and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application (this limitation is optional, and not addressed here.)
Adam-Nichols-Sekar does not appear to expressly teach, but Blatz teaches:
wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast (in a system for displaying and automatically executing tasks based on user interface shortcuts, Abstract, the tasks can include retrieving information such as weather [checking a weather forecast], ¶ 275, and the tasks includes user input as answers to follow-up questions, ¶ 226, which can be selected from a list of candidates [automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application], ¶ 299)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast, as taught by Blatz.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility and practicality of the method by including shortcuts for any task known in the art, e.g., for checking weather, Blatz ¶¶ 226, 275 and 299.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caesar (US 20130238384 A1), Lemay (US 20140040748 A1) and Yao (US 20170161337 A1)..
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
wherein the analysis includes optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP), (For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) adds nothing to concepts in claim 1.)
wherein the plurality of workflow activities are captured by a business process model […], wherein the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process are activities that impact business outcomes. (the adequate pattern for experience level is determined using a determination component and/or learning component, ¶ 71, user experience is determined by user experience determination component, ¶ 61, which using machine learning, ¶¶ 10, 53 and 71. For users and stakeholders, e.g., employers, ¶ 63, these systems and methods provide comprehensive benefits by offering a faster, more ergonomic, and highly personalized UI that improves workflow, increases enjoyment, and enhances results for the user, while simultaneously boosting productivity, safety, morale, and financial efficiency in various fields [business outcomes], ¶ 152. This paragraph implies a “business process model” because the described "user-specific optimizations" and improved UI workflows represent unique, personalized, and traceable user journeys ("corpuses") that directly map to specific business activities (e.g., manufacturing uptime, healthcare, efficiency). Note that in ¶ 63, an “employer” implies a business because the act of hiring, paying, and controlling an employee is a commercial or organizational activity designed to achieve specific goals, such as producing goods or providing services.)
wherein the first UI shortcut is generated based on a continuous bag of words (CBOW) model or a skip-gram model, wherein the first UI shortcut is generated based on a continuous bag of words (CBOW) model or a skip-gram model, (this limitation is optional and is not addressed in this mapping)
wherein the determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process is based on detection of a predetermined condition being met, wherein the predetermined condition includes the first user entering text into a search bar, wherein the entered text is determined to not have at least a predetermined threshold degree of similarity with the captured plurality of workflow activities, (this limitation is optional and is not addressed in this mapping)
wherein the first UI shortcut is added to a predetermined list of temporary bookmarks that are based on allowing continuation of a different unfinished workflow activity (this limitation is optional and is not addressed in this mapping)
and comprising: in response to a determination that the first UI shortcut is selected, displaying the application in the display of the first device and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application. (this limitation is optional and is not addressed in this mapping)
Adam-Nichols-Sekar does not appear to expressly teach, but Caesar teaches:
that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model” (a BPMN tool is Barium's product Barium Live, which is designed to help users with process management. With Barium Live, users can compose process steps, define business rules and exceptions, model process flows using BPMN, execute process models efficiently, and support interaction with running processes via personalized graphical user interfaces or spaces, presented on a user terminal such as e.g. a PC, a PDA or a smart phone, ¶ 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model”, as taught by Caesar.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the functions of Adam-Sekar using a known and effective tool, namely, a BPMN tool, for process management and generating personalize interfaces, Caesar ¶ 4.
Adam-Nichols-Sekar-Caesar does not appear to expressly teach, but Lemay teaches:
wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast (a system in which when a user asks "What's the weather", an assistant uses the previous dialog history to infer that the location intended for the weather query is the last location mentioned in the dialog history, ¶ 203).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Adam to include wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast, as taught by Lemay.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency of acquiring, accessing, and applying contextual information, Lemay ¶ 170, e.g., by reducing the possible interpretations of user input, Lemay ¶ 176.
Adam-Sekar-Gupta does not appear to expressly teach, but Yao teaches:
wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities (a method for identifying a stored ordered sequences from a series of user interactions, Abstract and ¶¶ 20-21, wherein a number of constraints can be used to guide identification of the sequence [mining process], e.g., as specified by a user, ¶ 15, including logical constraints that include “In-between item item/event number between” constraints, which means that the identified sequence have to have less than n items/events between a first input event α and a later event α-k. .
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities, as taught by Yao.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the scalability of the applying constraints that are appropriate to different types of sequence implementations, Yao ¶¶ 20 and 63.
Claim(s) 10, 13, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam; Chloe et al. (hereinafter Adam – US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols; Matt (hereinafter Nichols – US 20150294089 A1), Sekar; Archana et al. (hereinafter Sekar – US 20230208972 A1), Greene; Lawrence A. et al. (hereinafter Greene – US 20150309769 A1) and Blatz; John L. et al. (hereinafter Blatz – US 20200379727 A1).
Independent Claim 10:
Adam teaches:
A computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable and/or executable by a computer to cause the computer to:
capture a plurality of workflow activities input by a first user on a first user device (Session action sequences [workflow activities input by a first user in a predetermined sequential order] are tracked for UI sessions [capturing a plurality of workflow activities input by a user], ¶ 125. Sessions are on user devices, like mobile devices and desktop computer, ¶¶ 47 and 96)
by causing a task mining agent to be executed on the first user device; (determining the adequate pattern/prediction includes tracking user inputs, ¶ 88, including mining frequent patterns, ¶¶ 11-12 [task mining agent], fig. 1)
[…] analyze the captured plurality of workflow activities to determine whether the captured plurality of workflow activities correspond to at least one predetermined workflow process, (“In step 1602, user experience system 104, through gold standard component 156 in an embodiment, mines frequent patterns based on the training database or other stores of historical session usage. Each action is recorded in the UI sessions by input tracking component. Sessions action sequences are compared with action lists from other sessions of the user and sessions of other users. This identifies subsequences that arise frequently in the training database, identifying frequent patterns. A subsequence can be identified if all of its UI actions are included in the session, in the same order, with no constraint concerning the number of actions between two consecutive items”, ¶ 125. This describes a process that analyzes actions in a current session [analyze the captured plurality of workflow activities] and uses frequent pattern mining and sequential pattern mining—proven data mining methods—to identify standard or "gold standard" workflows from a user experience database [to determine whether the captured plurality of workflow activities correspond to at least one predetermined workflow process], ¶ 125. Further concerning the gold standards, they are reflective of workflows. E.g., Adam states “In some circumstances, there may be high-quality usage practices of interacting with a user interface and software workflows to achieve targeted results, otherwise known as gold standards. Current systems do not allow for identifying, understanding sharing, or leveraging user interface and software workflow gold standards individually or across users”, ¶ 6. As reflected in this statement, a gold standard workflow represents a highly effective and proven sequence of actions and practices for achieving a desired outcome with software. The statement defines these standards as "high-quality usage practices of interacting with a user interface and software workflows to achieve targeted results", see ¶ 6)
the at least one predetermined workflow process including a first workflow process; (e.g., one or more steps in a workflow task, ¶ 44)
generate a first user interface (UI) shortcut to a predicted next workflow activity in the first workflow process in response to evaluating the results of the analysis and determining that at least a predetermined threshold number of the captured plurality of workflow activities match a plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process, (a determination of whether user actions are associated to gold standard [workflow] is made, ¶ 101. At 210, the system predicts next user action based on the number of factors, including experience level and historic action sequences and adapts a user interface to present buttons/icons [generating a first user interface (UI) shortcut] a user is most likely to need next, Abstract and ¶¶ 72 and 125 and fig. 2, and the prediction of next action is influenced by the gold standard, ¶¶ 136 and 147.)
wherein the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process are different from one another, (The captured user session actions are described as including actions, e.g., [a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, a, b, c] or [a, m, l, e, b, f, e, f, a, a, b, c], ¶ 126. Given the user session represented by the list of actions, e.g., [a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, a, b, c], it is an undeniable fact that at least some of the actions are different from one another. This is because the list contains multiple distinct action types: 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', and 'h'. The presence of just one type of action, such as 'a', alongside a different action type, such as 'b', is enough to prove that not all the actions are the same. Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that these are only sequence examples, ¶ 180, and any combination of different actions is intended by the description.)
generating a second user interface (UI) shortcut to a predicted external task that does not correspond to the first workflow process […], wherein the predicted next workflow activity and the predicted external task are different from one another (the limitation of generating a second UI shortcut is optional, but is still taught by Adam, and is the selected branch for optional limitations of generating a first UI short or second UI shortcut. The determination of whether user actions are associated to gold standard [workflow] is made, ¶ 101. At 210, the system predicts next user action based on the number of factors, including experience level and historic action sequences, Abstract and ¶¶ 72 and 125 and fig. 2, and the prediction of next action is influenced by the gold standard, ¶¶ 136 and 147. Because the gold standards may be different based on a number of criteria, including experience level, ¶¶ 124 and 145, the shortcut generated can be to a predicted external task that does not correspond to the first workflow process, wherein the predicted next workflow activity and the predicted external task are different from one another, when one gold standard is selected over another gold standard, and includes different actions, e.g., more advanced actions/options, e.g., see ¶ 80)
embedding the first UI shortcut in the first workflow process for display on the first user device; (this limitation is optional, but is still taught by Adam. the prediction influences what the features of the next adapted user interface should be output, e.g., a single button or icon to the one most likely to be needed next, ¶¶ 72 and 83, and the output is presented [embedding the first UI shortcut…for display] at 216, as “dynamic shortcuts”, ¶ 77, and so the user discovers features in the software at the right moment [e.g., sequence and experience level], ¶ 80)
Adam does not appear to expressly teach, but Nichols teaches:
that the analysis is by use of an optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP) (a workflow management service that includes a Natural Language Processing module that communicates with an OCR service to receive images as input and convert them to readable text for input into the NLP module, ¶ 31 and fig. 2).
Accordingly, 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 method of Adam to include that the analysis is by use of an optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP)as taught by Nichols.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the processing capabilities of the method with regards to recognizing different types of inputs, including, natural language inputs and image inputs, as in workflow management systems known in the prior art, Nichols ¶ 31.
As mentioned above, Adam teaches a determination of whether user actions are associated to gold standard [workflow] is made, ¶ 101. However, Adam-Nichols does not appear to expressly teach, but Sekar teaches:
that the generating of the second UI is in response to evaluating the results of the analysis and determining that at least the predetermined threshold number of the captured plurality of workflow activities do not match the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process, (A method that analyzes a plurality of actions taken by a user to automatically discover an optimized process, wherein the optimized process includes a sequence of actions having a threshold number of matches compared to the actions taken by the user, Abstract and ¶ 103. Here, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that a sequence different from a first possible sequence is selected based on the match threshold not being met for the first sequence not being met [do not match the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process]).
Accordingly, 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 method of Adam to include that the generating of the second UI is in response to evaluating the results of the analysis and determining that at least the predetermined threshold number of the captured plurality of workflow activities do not match the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process, as taught by Sekar.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to determine association/relationship between the sets of actions and a most efficient sequence (“gold standard”) in a known and effective fashion, Sekar Abstract and ¶ 103 and Adam ¶ 101, to ensure Adam’s goal of identifying the most efficient workflows, Adam ¶ 65 and 101, and Sekar ¶ 51.
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Adam-Sekar-Gupta-Yao does not appear to expressly teach, but Greene teaches:
wherein the first UI shortcut is generated as a bookmark configured to cause the first workflow process to resume in response to a determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process (a task management tool that identifies incomplete tasks, ¶ 29, generates a task list based on the incomplete [user…abandoned] tasks, in which the user can click to return to associated portion of the workflow and complete the task [bookmark configured to cause the first workflow process to resume], Abstract and ¶¶ 15, 26 and 29-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the first UI shortcut is generated as a bookmark configured to cause the first workflow process to resume in response to a determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process, as taught by Greene.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionality, versatility, and user-friendliness of the method by applying it to workflow environment such as software development for easy tracking of tasks, Greene ¶ 12.
Adam-Sekar-Gupta-Yao-Greene does not appear to expressly teach, but Blatz teaches:
wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application (in a system for displaying and automatically executing tasks based on user interface shortcuts, Abstract, the tasks can include retrieving information such as weather [checking a weather forecast], ¶ 275, and the tasks includes user input as answers to follow-up questions, ¶ 226, which can be selected from a list of candidates [automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application], ¶ 299)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application, as taught by Blatz.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility and practicality of the method by including shortcuts for any task known in the art, e.g., weather and answering questions, Blatz ¶¶ 226, 275 and 299.
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
wherein the task mining agent identifies tasks internal to a context of at least the first workflow process (tasks are predicted based on a current experience level groups [identifies tasks internal to a context of at least the first workflow process], as discussed above and ¶ 86)
and tasks external to the context of at least the first workflow process, (the groupings are updated [tasks external to the context of at least the first workflow process] over time, ¶ 53)
wherein the second UI shortcut is a selectable shortcut configured to be selected (selectable buttons/icons, Abstract and ¶¶ 72 and 125 and fig. 2)
by contact on a touch-sensitive portion of the display of the first device while displayed thereon. (the buttons interactable by touch on a touch user interface, ¶¶ 96, 112 and 116)
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
comprising: using the tasks external to the context of at least the first workflow process to build a corpus of second workflow activities for widgets, applications, and pages, outside a current context of the first workflow process, wherein the second workflow activities correspond to a determined second predetermined workflow process; (User experience learning component 142 learns and groups individuals across all of the various software applications and over time, grouping users in same experience group [e.g., experience group different than the one discussed in claim 1 […second workflow activities correspond to a determined second predetermined workflow process], within an application suite [corpus of second workflow activities for widgets, applications, and pages], ¶ 54. A second user experience, or set of features, for this group is considered a corpus including widgets, applications and pages, because the set of applications include a number of screens [pages] and buttons [widgets], ¶ 44.)
capturing additional workflow activities input by the first user on the first user device; (activity input for a second experience level is similar to that explained above for claim 1, ¶¶ 60, 65, 68-69 and fig. 2)
analyzing the additional workflow activities to determine whether the additional workflow activities correspond to at least one predetermined workflow process; (activity analyzes for a second experience level is similar to that explained above for claim 1, Abstract and ¶¶ 61-62, 96-99)
in response to a determination that the additional workflow activities correspond to the second workflow process, generating a supplemental UI shortcut to a predicted next workflow activity in the second workflow process; (features [supplemental UI shortcut] determined for a second experience level are different, based on experience and other factors, as explained above for claim 1)
and embedding the supplemental UI shortcut in the second workflow process for display on the first user device. (features [supplemental UI shortcut] displayed [embedd[ed]] for a second experience level are different, based on experience and other factors, as explained above for claim 1)
Independent Claim 19:
Claim(s) 19 is directed to a system for accomplishing the functions of the computer program in claim 10, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Caesar; Fredrik et al. (hereinafter Caesar – US 20130238384 A1).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
wherein the plurality of workflow activities are captured by a business process model […], wherein the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process are activities that impact business outcomes. (the adequate pattern for experience level is determined using a determination component and/or learning component, ¶ 71, user experience is determined by user experience determination component, ¶ 61, which using machine learning, ¶¶ 10, 53 and 71. For users and stakeholders, e.g., employers, ¶ 63, these systems and methods provide comprehensive benefits by offering a faster, more ergonomic, and highly personalized UI that improves workflow, increases enjoyment, and enhances results for the user, while simultaneously boosting productivity, safety, morale, and financial efficiency in various fields [business outcomes], ¶ 152. This paragraph implies a “business process model” because the described "user-specific optimizations" and improved UI workflows represent unique, personalized, and traceable user journeys ("corpuses") that directly map to specific business activities (e.g., manufacturing uptime, healthcare, efficiency). Note that in ¶ 63, an “employer” implies a business because the act of hiring, paying, and controlling an employee is a commercial or organizational activity designed to achieve specific goals, such as producing goods or providing services.)
Adam-Nichols-Sekar does not appear to expressly teach, but Caesar teaches:
that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model” (a BPMN tool is Barium's product Barium Live, which is designed to help users with process management. With Barium Live, users can compose process steps, define business rules and exceptions, model process flows using BPMN, execute process models efficiently, and support interaction with running processes via personalized graphical user interfaces or spaces, presented on a user terminal such as e.g. a PC, a PDA or a smart phone, ¶ 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model”, as taught by Caesar.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the functions of Adam-Sekar using a known and effective tool, namely, a BPMN tool, for process management and generating personalize interfaces, Caesar ¶ 4.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yao; Wen et al. (hereinafter Yao – US 20170161337 A1).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
wherein the captured plurality of workflow activities are input in a predetermined sequential order on the first user device (Session action sequences [workflow activities input by a first user in a predetermined sequential order] are tracked for UI sessions [capturing a plurality of workflow activities input by a user], ¶ 125. Sessions are on user devices, like mobile devices and desktop computer, ¶¶ 47 and 96)
Adam does not appear to expressly teach:
wherein the first UI shortcut is generated based on a continuous bag of words (CBOW) model or a skip-gram model. (this limitation is not taught by Adam, but is optional, and not addressed in this mapping).
Adam-Sekar-Gupta does not appear to expressly teach, but Yao teaches:
wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities. (a method for identifying a stored ordered sequences from a series of user interactions, Abstract and ¶¶ 20-21, wherein a number of constraints can be used to guide identification of the sequence [mining process], e.g., as specified by a user, ¶ 15, including logical constraints that include “In-between item item/event number between” constraints, which means that the identified sequence have to have less than n items/events between a first input event α and a later event α-k. .
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities, as taught by Yao.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the scalability of the applying constraints that are appropriate to different types of sequence implementations, Yao ¶¶ 20 and 63.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), Gupta (US 20230177438 A1) and Yao (US 20170161337 A1, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Greene; Lawrence A. et al. (hereinafter Greene – US 20150309769 A1).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Adam-Sekar-Gupta-Yao does not appear to expressly teach, but Greene teaches:
wherein the first UI shortcut is generated as a bookmark configured to cause the first workflow process to resume in response to a determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process (a task management tool that identifies incomplete tasks, ¶ 29, generates a task list based on the incomplete [user…abandoned] tasks, in which the user can click to return to associated portion of the workflow and complete the task [bookmark configured to cause the first workflow process to resume], Abstract and ¶¶ 15, 26 and 29-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the first UI shortcut is generated as a bookmark configured to cause the first workflow process to resume in response to a determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process, as taught by Greene.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionality, versatility, and user-friendliness of the method by applying it to workflow environment such as software development for easy tracking of tasks, Greene ¶ 12.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1) and Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Blatz; John L. et al. (hereinafter Blatz – US 20200379727 A1).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated.
Adam further teaches:
wherein the predicted next workflow activity in the first workflow process comprises an identified collection of data associated with the first user being added to an application displayed on the first user device, (The most probable next actions of the user presented as options [identified collection of data associated with the first user] on the user interface, ¶ 45. the user interface is adapted [added to an application displayed on the first user device], ¶ 135.)
and the program instructions readable and/or executable by the computer to cause the computer to: in response to a determination that the first UI shortcut is selected, displaying the application in the display of the first device (when a dynamic shortcut is selected as the next action, the adapted user interface displays the shortcut on the user interface/application, ¶¶ 11 and 75 and fig. 14)
Greene further teaches:
wherein the first UI shortcut is added to a predetermined list of temporary bookmarks that are each based on allowing continuation of a different unfinished workflow activity of a workflow process (the task management tool generates a task list of incomplete tasks [added to a predetermined list…different unfinished workflow activity], ¶ 30, on which the user can click on a task [first UI shortcut], ¶ 26, the tasks are “temporary bookmarks” because they are part of the task list only until they are completed and are then removed, see Abstract and ¶ 30)
Adam-Sekar-Gupta-Yao-Greene does not appear to expressly teach, but Blatz teaches:
wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application (in a system for displaying and automatically executing tasks based on user interface shortcuts, Abstract, the tasks can include retrieving information such as weather [checking a weather forecast], ¶ 275, and the tasks includes user input as answers to follow-up questions, ¶ 226, which can be selected from a list of candidates [automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application], ¶ 299)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application, as taught by Blatz.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility and practicality of the method by including shortcuts for any task known in the art, e.g., weather and answering questions, Blatz ¶¶ 226, 275 and 299.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20180364879 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20150294089 A1), Sekar (US 20230208972 A1), Greene (US 20150309769 A1) and Blatz (US 20200379727 A1), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Caesar (US 20130238384 A1), Lemay (US 20140040748 A1), Yao (US 20170161337 A1), Gupta; Sagar et al. (hereinafter Gupta – US 20230177438 A1), Min; Jun-Ki et al. (hereinafter Min – US 20190235916 A1) and Chishi; Thuli Nitoshe et al. (hereinafter Chishi – US 20240403377 A1).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Adam further teaches:
wherein the analysis includes optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing (NLP), (For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) adds nothing to concepts in claim 1.)
wherein the plurality of workflow activities are captured by a business process model […], wherein the plurality of workflow activities associated with the first workflow process are activities that impact business outcomes. (the adequate pattern for experience level is determined using a determination component and/or learning component, ¶ 71, user experience is determined by user experience determination component, ¶ 61, which using machine learning, ¶¶ 10, 53 and 71. For users and stakeholders, e.g., employers, ¶ 63, these systems and methods provide comprehensive benefits by offering a faster, more ergonomic, and highly personalized UI that improves workflow, increases enjoyment, and enhances results for the user, while simultaneously boosting productivity, safety, morale, and financial efficiency in various fields [business outcomes], ¶ 152. This paragraph implies a “business process model” because the described "user-specific optimizations" and improved UI workflows represent unique, personalized, and traceable user journeys ("corpuses") that directly map to specific business activities (e.g., manufacturing uptime, healthcare, efficiency). Note that in ¶ 63, an “employer” implies a business because the act of hiring, paying, and controlling an employee is a commercial or organizational activity designed to achieve specific goals, such as producing goods or providing services.)
wherein the second UI shortcut is a selectable shortcut configured to be selected by contact on a touch-sensitive portion of the display of the first device while displayed thereon(selectable buttons/icons, Abstract and ¶¶ 72 and 125 and fig. 2, the buttons interactable by touch on a touch user interface, ¶¶ 96, 112 and 116)
Greene further teaches:
wherein the first UI shortcut is added to a predetermined list of temporary bookmarks that are each based on allowing continuation of a different unfinished workflow activity of a workflow process (the task management tool generates a task list of incomplete tasks [added to a predetermined list…different unfinished workflow activity], ¶ 30, on which the user can click on a task [first UI shortcut], ¶ 26, the tasks are “temporary bookmarks” because they are part of the task list only until they are completed and are then removed, see Abstract and ¶ 30)
Adam, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Blatz teaches:
wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application (in a system for displaying and automatically executing tasks based on user interface shortcuts, Abstract, the tasks can include retrieving information such as weather [checking a weather forecast], ¶ 275, and the tasks includes user input as answers to follow-up questions, ¶ 226, which can be selected from a list of candidates [automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application], ¶ 299)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast and automatically populating a remaining uncompleted portion of unanswered application questions of the application, as taught by Blatz.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility and practicality of the method by including shortcuts for any task known in the art, e.g., weather and answering questions, Blatz ¶¶ 226, 275 and 299.
Adam, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Caesar teaches:
that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model” (a BPMN tool is Barium's product Barium Live, which is designed to help users with process management. With Barium Live, users can compose process steps, define business rules and exceptions, model process flows using BPMN, execute process models efficiently, and support interaction with running processes via personalized graphical user interfaces or spaces, presented on a user terminal such as e.g. a PC, a PDA or a smart phone, ¶ 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include that the business model is a “business process model and notation (BPMN) model and notation (BPMN) model”, as taught by Caesar.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the functions of Adam-Sekar using a known and effective tool, namely, a BPMN tool, for process management and generating personalize interfaces, Caesar ¶ 4.
Adam, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Lemay teaches:
wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast for at least one location previously searched by the first user on the first user device (a system in which when a user asks "What's the weather", an assistant uses the previous dialog history to infer that the location BPMN for the weather query is the last location mentioned in the dialog history, ¶ 203).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Adam to include wherein the predicted external task comprises checking a weather forecast for at least one location previously searched by the first user on the first user device, as taught by Lemay.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency of acquiring, accessing, and applying contextual information, Lemay ¶ 170, e.g., by reducing the possible interpretations of user input, Lemay ¶ 176.
Adam, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Yao teaches:
wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities (a method for identifying a stored ordered sequences from a series of user interactions, Abstract and ¶¶ 20-21, wherein a number of constraints can be used to guide identification of the sequence [mining process], e.g., as specified by a user, ¶ 15, including logical constraints that include “In-between item item/event number between” constraints, which means that the identified sequence have to have less than n items/events between a first input event α and a later event α-k. .
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predetermined sequential order does not include any intervening workflow activities that are not part of the predetermined sequential order being input on the first user device between any of the captured plurality of workflow activities, as taught by Yao.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the scalability of the applying constraints that are appropriate to different types of sequence implementations, Yao ¶¶ 20 and 63.
Adam, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Gupta teaches:
wherein the first UI shortcut is generated based on a continuous bag of words (CBOW) model or a skip-gram model. (a machine learning model may be trained for multiple word embedding techniques (e.g., continuous-bag-of-words (CBOW) model and skip-gram model) to increase the robustness and accuracy of the machine learning model 115, ¶ 45).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the first UI shortcut is generated based on a continuous bag of words (CBOW) model or a skip-gram model, as taught by Gupta.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to increase the prediction accuracy of the method, Gupta ¶ 45.
Adam, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Min teaches:
wherein the determination that the first user has abandoned the first workflow process is based on detection of a predetermined condition being met wherein the predetermined condition includes the first user entering text […], wherein the entered text is determined to not have at least a […] similarity with the captured plurality of workflow activities (in response to identifying that a subject matter of a second user input is dissimilar from the subject matter of a previous user input associated with a first thread [captured plurality of workflow activities], a new, second thread associated with the second user input is generated and places the first thread in a paused or closed state, ¶¶ 108 and 109 and fig. 7. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the first and second threads are associated with a series of activities [workflows, include the captured plurality of workflow activities],e.g., sequential messages send/received on the threads.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include wherein the predetermined condition includes the first user entering text […], wherein the entered text is determined to not have at least a […] similarity with the captured plurality of workflow activities, as taught by Min.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility/functionality of the method by allowing for keeping and adjusting to multiple workflow contexts, Min ¶ 3.
Adam-Sekar-Greene-Min does not appear to expressly teach, but Chishi teaches:
that the text is being entered “into a search bar” (input into a search query box to effectuate a search using the related topics, ¶ 27).
that similarity is determined based on a “predetermined threshold degree”. (wherein related topics are identified based on meeting a threshold weight, ¶¶ 64 and 68)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Adam to include that the text is being entered “into a search bar” and that similarity is determined based on a “predetermined threshold degree”, as taught by Chishi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the efficient input workflow in workflows that include any type additional type of activity, including user queries, Adam ¶¶ 152 and 177 and Chishi ¶¶ 108-109.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
Although the applicant appears to contest the examiner's claim interpretation, see Remarks Pg(s) 13, they have not provided specific reasoning or argument to support this disagreement.
As previously discussed in the Claim Interpretation section, the method claim 1 and dependent contain a two-pronged, mutually exclusive limitation. Depending on the evaluation, the method requires one of two paths: it performs a specific action if a threshold of activities matches, or it performs a different action if they fail to match. Because only one of these two paths is required, the claimed paths are optional.
103:
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they unpersuasive and/or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection above.
First, the applicant alleges that Greene fails to disclose limitation(s) of the independent claims 1, 10 and 19, see Remarks Pg(s) 14-18, specifically because Greene’s shortcuts are only for retrieval/navigating or displaying workflow states, but “lacks any mechanism where the system proactively completes data fields or process steps based on the specific triggering of a shortcut”, see pgs 17-18.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “proactively completes data fields or process steps based on the specific triggering of a shortcut”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, instead the claimed invention “automatically populating uncompleted portions of the first workflow process in response to determining that the first UI shortcut has been selected.” Note that using broadest reasonable interpretation “uncompleted portions of the first workflow process” can refer to any portion of the first workflow process that is not completed, and “in response to” can be interpreted as any time after. Nowhere does the Instant Specification attempt to limit the meaning of the phrase “in response to” or the scope of “uncompleted portions”.
The applicant seems to unduly limit Greene’s shortcuts. Greene’s shortcuts take automatically returns the user to a location on a document that needs completion, e.g., answering of questions, and can populate answers to the questions [to “complete” a step of answering the questions] after returning to the portion of the workflow and inserting answers based on selected candidate(s), as explained in 103 section above.
As such, Greene’s mapping in the 103 rejection above is appropriate to teach the limitations, as claimed.
Second, the applicant relies on the argument(s) above to allege patentability of the remaining claims, Remarks Pg(s) 19-22.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reason(s).
Double Patenting:
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they moot as being overcome by claim amendment(s).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Iyer; Kartik et al. US 11200539 B2, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing automatic completion of robotic process automation (RPA) workflows using machine learning, Abstract and Fig. 9.
Ramamurthy; Ravi et al. US 20190324781 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing predicting a next step to be performed in an activity, ¶ 51 and fig. 8.
Teng; Joan C. et al. US 7937655 B2, is pertinent to claims 4-5 for disclosing creating cross-application workflow and predicting actions external to a workflow, cols 28:31-45 and 31:25-49 and figs. 22-25.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights