Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 06/12/2023 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 06/15/2026, amending claim 1, 13, 17,and 19-20. Cancelling claim 10.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending claims 1, 17 and 20 objections will be withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below and in view of applicant remarks 02/11/2026 pages 12-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 06/15/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 9-11 of the remarks):
as amended, claim 1 is directed to a specific computer implemented technique for dynamically improving execution of browser-based intelligent workflows though:
• generating, via an AI model, a customized recommendation that automatically includes a video, text communication, or chat session within a web browser as a training action;
• supplementing a step of the intelligent workflow with the training action to facilitate progression through browser-based computerized activities; and
• automatically designing, developing, and executing workflows that dynamically present the training action based on actual or predicted bottlenecks in user progression.
These limitations are not directed to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity. Rather, they recite specific operations performed within a computer system, including AI-based analysis of workflow data and real-time modification ofworkflow execution within a browser environment. Such functionality does not constitute organizing human activity perse and cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the claim recites an abstract idea, with Applicant is in no way conceding, Applicant nonetheless respectfully submits that the\ claims integrate any such concept into a practical application. For instance, the amended claims presented herewith provide a specific technological implementation in a browser-based workflow environment. Claim 1 recites that the generated recommendation is automatically incorporated into execution of an intelligent workflow operating through a graphical user interface in a web browser,
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Independent Claims 1, similar steps likewise reflect in claims 17 and 20, the claims, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea methods and systems for generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface" (figure 4 of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 17 and 20 recites the abstract idea of generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards mental
processes because the limitations recite identifying a recommendation based on monitoring and recording progressions of users. Which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a computer system, a memory, a processor, memory, a computer program product, processing circuit, graphical user interface, and artificial intelligence (AI) model are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of a “artificial intelligence (AI) model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “artificial intelligence (AI) model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The use of generic computer component to “outputting customized recommendation based on different workflow data” does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 17 and 20 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 17, and 20 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a computer system, a memory, a processor, memory, a computer program product, processing circuit, graphical user interface, and artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Applicant argues (Pages 11-12 of the remarks):
Applicant notes that the Examiner has expressly acknowledged that the prior art fails to teach or suggest this combination, including the dynamic presentation of training actions during execution of the workflow, which confirms that the claimed invention is not a routine or generic implementation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Examiner point out with regard to applicant argument above that did not identify any reference that discloses the overall combination recited in the independent claims. This argument is not persuasive because the test under Alice is not a matter of evidence but rather a test of law, the nonobviousness or novelty of those limitations would not provide an indication that those limitations are 'something more'. In other words, nonobviousness or novelty is not an indicia of eligibility - it is not an indicia that limitations provide "something more.
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, 3-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-15 are directed to a method (process), claims 17-19 are directed to a system (machine) and claim 20 is directed to a computer program product (Machine) Examiner note that the computer program product is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se in view of applicant specification ¶[0043]. Thus, all claims fall within one of the for statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 17, and 20 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract ideas for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
Creating stored data records that record progress through computerized activities of an intelligent workflow via graphical user interfaces;
extracting features of the recorded progress as reflected by the stored data records, wherein the extracted features reflect properties of progression through the computerized activities of the intelligent workflow, and wherein the extracted features comprise a detected bottleneck to progression through the computerized activities of the intelligent workflow and features of successful interactions with the intelligent workflow;
building and training at least one artificial intelligence (AI) model using the extracted features;
generating, using the at least one AI model, a customized recommendations for automatically including a video, text communication, or chat session in web-browser as a training action to supplement a step of the intelligent workflow and facilitate progression through browser-based computerized activities of the intelligent workflow; and
automatically designing, developing, and executing one or more intelligent workflows that incorporate the customized recommendations, wherein the executing includes dynamically presenting the video, text communication , or chat session on a graphical user interface through which a user interacts with an executing intelligent workflow of the one or more intelligent workflows that incorporate the customized recommendation as part of the user progressing through the deployed intelligent workflow and based on actual or predicted presence of the bottleneck in the user’s progression through computerized activities of the executing intelligent workflow, to facilitate the user’s progression through the computerized activities of the executing intelligent workflow, wherein incorporation of the customized recommendation provides improvement in an existing workflow or a to-be-developed intelligent workflow through reduced or avoided inefficiency.
The Applicant's Specification titled "AI-BASED INTELLIGENT WORKFLOW IMPROVEMENT" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface" (figure 4 of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 17 and 20 recites the abstract idea of generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards mental
processes because the limitations recite identifying a recommendation based on monitoring and recording progressions of users. Which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 3-9, 11, and 13-15, and 18-19 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 Cancelled
claim 3 wherein the building and training the at least one AI model trains an AI model, using the features of successful interactions, to generate a training action to be presented based on detecting the bottleneck.
claim 4 using the features of the successful interactions, how the bottleneck may be avoided.
claim 5 wherein the detected bottlenecks comprises at least one of:
time to complete one or more computerized activities of the plurality of computerized activities;
time to complete one or more steps of the intelligent workflow;
number of steps of the intelligent workflow;
number of activities of the intelligent workflow;
number of trials on a step of the intelligent workflow;
number of trials of the intelligent workflow; number of interactions with an AI-based assistant; and
rate of termination in progressing through the intelligent workflow.
claim 6 wherein the at least one AI model comprises an AI model configured to classify, based on interactions of the user, an expertise level of the user, and identify a ranking of potential bottlenecks to the user in progressing through the intelligent workflow.
claim 7 wherein the at least one AI model comprises an AI model configured to classify instances of unsuccessful progression through the intelligent workflow by severity.
claim 8 further comprising grouping interactions with the intelligent workflow based on at least one of:
user type; and
industry for which the intelligent workflow is deployed;
wherein the generating produces customized recommendations that vary across at least one of different user types and different industries.
claim 9 further comprising repeating, for each additional intelligent workflow of a plurality of additional intelligent workflows:
the creating stored data records; and
the extracting features, to produce additional sets of extracted features;
wherein the building and training the at least one AI model uses the additional sets of extracted features.
claim 10 Cancelled
claim 11 wherein the stored data records includes at least one of: logs, screen recordings, voice recordings, and helpdesk conversations.
claim 12 Cancelled
claim 13 further including monitoring results of dynamically presenting the video, text communication, or chat session to the user, the results providing feedback as to whether the presenting is helpful in progressing though the executing intelligent workflow.
claim 14 further comprising recording a video of interactions by the user in conjunction with dynamically presenting the video, text communication, or chat session, and providing the video as part of the results.
claim 15 further including generating, using the at least one at least one AI model, another a customized recommendation that includes a recommended modality for users to consume the intelligent workflow in order to optimize their engagement with the intelligent workflow.
claim 16 Cancelled
claim 18 wherein the building and training the at least one AI model trains an AI model, using the features of successful interactions, to generate a training action to be presented based on detecting a bottleneck.
claim 19 repeating, for each additional intelligent workflow of a plurality of additional intelligent workflows: the creating stored data records; and the extracting features, to produce additional sets of extracted features; wherein the building and training the at least one AI model uses the additional sets of extracted features and wherein the designing developing, and executing the one or more intelligent workflows that incorporate the customized recommendations provides at least one of: improvement in one or more existing intelligent workflows, and design of one or more intelligent workflows to be developed and deployed.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 17, and 20.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 17, and 20 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 graphical user interface, artificial intelligence (AI) model
Claim 17 a computer system, a memory, a processor, memory, graphical user interface, artificial intelligence (AI) model
Claim 20 a computer program product, processing circuit, graphical user interface, artificial intelligence (AI) model
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 17, and 20 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a computer system, a memory, a processor, memory, a computer program product, processing circuit, graphical user interface, and artificial intelligence (AI) model which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 17, and 20 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The additional elements of a “artificial intelligence (AI) model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “artificial intelligence (AI) model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps of generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 3-9, 11, 13-15, and 18-19 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 17, and 20 respectively, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 17, and 20, include a computer system, a memory, a processor, memory, a computer program product, processing circuit, graphical user interface, and artificial intelligence (AI) model. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generating customized recommendations for improvement workflow and outputting the recommendation to a user interface.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-15, 17-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Swvigaradoss et al. US 2022/0294710: Automatic automation recommendation, Gomes Pereira et al. US 2021/0294818: Root cause and predictive analysis for technical issues of a computing environment, Pranger et al. US 2019/0251359: Emotive recognition and feedback system, DiMaria et al. US 2023/0057877: Consumer-oriented adaptive cloud conversation platform and Ke, Gang, Hong-Le Du, and Ahmadyfaraz WO 2024/057101: Chat-driven business process modeling notation (BPMN) with natural language processing and machine learning integration. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “dynamically presenting the video, text communication , or chat session on a graphical user interface through which a user interacts with an executing intelligent workflow of the one or more intelligent workflows that incorporate the customized recommendation as part of the user progressing through the deployed intelligent workflow and based on actual or predicted presence of the bottleneck in the user’s progression through computerized activities of the executing intelligent workflow, to facilitate the user’s progression through the computerized activities of the executing intelligent workflow.” The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nair R, Bose A, Iyer M, Chopra R. Optimizing Sales Automation Workflows with AI: Leveraging Natural Language Processing and Reinforcement Learning Algorithms. Journal of AI ML Research. 2023 Apr 6;12(2).
Nair et al. US 2022/0046292: Networked system for real-time computer-aided augmentation of live input video stream.
Ahmadyfaraz WO 2024/057101: Chat-driven business process modeling notation (BPMN) with natural language processing and machine learning integration.
Rao US 2021/0342723: Artificial intelligence techniques for improving efficiency.
Kalluri et al. US 2021/0264202: Enhanced processing for communication workflows using machine-learning techniques.
Kalia et al. US 2020/0410423: Mining process logs for generation of workflow for service request completion.
Vazquez-Rivera et al. US 2020/0177403: Collaboration synchronization.
Abraham et al. US 2015/0242786: Integrating process context from heterogeneous workflow containers to optimize workflow performance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights