Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 12/28/2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 12/28/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites “A method, comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
identifying a plurality of split points of the sequence of user interface commands: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using observation and judgement to identify a plurality of split points of the sequence of user interface commands.
generating a linear partition graph comprising a plurality of vertices corresponding to a subset of split points: These limitations recite mathematical relationships similar to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv).
identifying a subset of paths in the linear partition graph: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using observation and judgement to identify a subset of paths in the linear partition graph.
and utilizing the subset of paths for identifying a recurring pattern in a new sequence of user interface commands: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using observation and judgement to identify a recurring pattern in a new sequence of user interface commands utilizing the subset of paths.
Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
receiving, by a processing device, a sequence of user interface commands: These additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering per MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering recited by “receiving, by a processing device, a sequence of user interface commands” which are well-understood routine and conventional activities similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 2
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas as the judicial exception of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the recurring pattern corresponds to a task instance: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, e.g. the recurring pattern, to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g. corresponds to a task instance. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Elements that use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to indicate a field of use or technological environment. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 3
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas as the judicial exception of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the recurring pattern corresponds to a user interface form instance: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, e.g. the recurring pattern, to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g. corresponds to a user interface form instance. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Elements that use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to indicate a field of use or technological environment. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 4
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas as the judicial exception of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
utilizing the recurring pattern for training a model facilitating user interface automation: These additional elements recite only the idea of training a model facilitating user interface automation utilizing the recurring pattern and attempts to cover any implementation of training a model facilitating user interface automation without any restriction as to how the recurring pattern is specifically utilized for training. These additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include adding words equivalent to "apply it" with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim 5
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 1 as well as, inter alia:
wherein each path in the linear partition graph defines a corresponding partitioning of the sequence of user interface commands into two or more sub- sequences: These limitations recite mathematical relationships similar to a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iii).
Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a
practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent
ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 1 as well as, inter alia:
wherein the subset of split points is selected based on corresponding quality metric values associated with each split point of the plurality of split points: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using observation and judgement to select split points based on corresponding quality metric values associated with each split point.
Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a
practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent
ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 1 as well as, inter alia:
identifies a set of rules corresponding to the subset of paths, wherein each rule of the set of rules reproduces a corresponding partitioning of the sequence of user interface commands into two or more sub-sequences: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using observation and judgement to identify a set of rules corresponding to the subset of paths, wherein each rule reproduces a partitioning of the sequence into two or more sub-sequences.
Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a
practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent
ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 1 as well as, inter alia:
selecting a best path based on additional evaluation of the subset of paths: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of using observation, judgement, and evaluation to select the best path based on additional evaluation of the subset of paths.
Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a
practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent
ineligible.
Claim 9-15
Step 1: These claims are directed to “A system comprising:”; therefore, it is directed the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 9-15 recite the same judicial exception as Claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception recited in these claims are not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step for 9-15 mirrors that of Claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 do not contain significantly more than the judicial exception for these claims. The analysis at this step for Claims 9-15 mirrors that of Claims 1-7, respectively.
Claims 16-20
Step 1: This claim recites "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:"; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 16-20 recite the same judicial exception as Claims 1-5, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception recited in these claims are not integrated into a practical application. The only difference between Claims 16-20 and Claims 1-5, is that Claims 16-20 are directed to "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to, cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step for Claims 16-20 mirrors that of Claims 1-5, respectively.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 do not contain significantly more than the judicial exception for these claims. The only difference between Claims 16-20 and Claims 1-5, is that Claims 16-20 are directed to "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to, cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step for Claims 16-20 mirrors that of Claims 1-5, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde (US 12067004 B2, filed 05/15/2023), hereafter Rohde, in view of Verpoorten et al. ("Mixed Initiative Ambient Environments: A Self-Learning System to Support User Tasks in Interactive Environments", Hasselt University Expertise Centre for Digital Media and transnationale Universiteit Limburg) (Year: 2007), hereafter Verpoorten.
Regarding independent claim 1, Rohde teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, a sequence of user interface commands ([Col. 4, Lines 43-49] discusses identifying and storing a sequence of user interactions with an application);
identifying a plurality of split points of the sequence of user interface commands ([Col. 3, Lines 22-28] discusses the system recognizes the same click path or sequence of interactions and thus, is identifying a plurality of split points within the click path or sequence of interactions).
Rohde does not explicitly teach generating a linear partition graph comprising a plurality of vertices corresponding to a subset of split points; identifying a subset of paths in the linear partition graph; and utilizing the subset of paths for identifying a recurring pattern in a new sequence of user interface commands
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Verpoorten teaches a method for generating a linear partition graph comprising a plurality of vertices corresponding to a subset of split points ([Sec. 4.2-4.3 & Fig. 2] discusses generating a decision tree with linear split points, and the vertices of the tree correspond to a subset of split points); identifying a subset of paths in the linear partition graph ([Sec. 4.2-4.3] discusses the system identifying a match within a specific subset and further predicting the next action the user will likely execute); and using the subset of paths for identifying a recurring pattern in a new sequence of user interface commands ([Sec. 4.2] discusses that using the decision tree will allow the system to recognize a similar situation or path and react accordingly, and thus, identifies a recurring pattern in a new sequence of user interface commands).
Because Rohde teaches receiving a sequence of user interface commands and identifying a plurality of split points of the sequence; and Verpoorten teaches generating a linear partition graph comprising vertices corresponding to a subset of split points, identifying a subset of paths in the linear partition graph, and utilizing the subset for identifying a recurring pattern in a new sequence, accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating a linear partition graph comprising vertices corresponding to a subset of split points, identifying a subset of paths in the linear partition graph, and utilizing the subset for identifying a recurring pattern in a new sequence as taught by Verpoorten into Rohde’s computer-implemented method, with a reasonable expectation of success, to teach a method, comprising: receiving, by a processing device, a sequence of user interface commands; identifying a plurality of split points of the sequence of user interface commands; generating a linear partition graph comprising a plurality of vertices corresponding to a subset of split points; identifying a subset of paths in the linear partition graph; and utilizing the subset of paths for identifying a recurring pattern in a new sequence of user interface commands. This combination would have been motivated by the desire to reduce complexity and include the ability for refinement by removing irrelevant context from the sequence (Verpoorten [Sec. 4.2]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, the combination of Rohde and Verpoorten teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 1, including wherein the recurring pattern corresponds to a task instance (Rohde [Col. 5, Lines 28-40] discusses the pattern may correspond to a task instance such as searching for an account).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the combination of Rohde and Verpoorten teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 1, including wherein the recurring pattern corresponds to a user interface form instance (Rohde [Col. 3, Lines 28-40] discusses the pattern may correspond to a user interface form instance to reduce the number of necessary actions taken by the user).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the combination of Rohde and Verpoorten teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 1, including utilizing the recurring pattern for training a model facilitating user interface automation (Rohde [Col. 3, Lines 22-28] discusses the system programs a ‘hot target’ based on recurring patterns to be directly accessible to the user interface; Rohde [Abstract] discusses the serving updating the system to associate the recurring sequence with the first target state; and thus, the model learns and is trained from past recurring patterns to enable automation for future use).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the combination of Rohde and Verpoorten teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 1, including wherein each path in the linear partition graph defines a corresponding partitioning of the sequence of user interface commands into two or more sub- sequences (Verpoorten [Fig. 2] discusses each path in the linear partition graph where a partition exists defines a partitioning of user interface commands into at least two sub-sequences).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the combination of Rohde and Verpoorten teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 1, including wherein the subset of split points is selected based on corresponding quality metric values associated with each split point of the plurality of split points (Rohde [Col. 7, Lines 46-49] discusses the server determining if the sequence meets or exceeds a designated minimum number of occurrences in order to form a recurring path and thus, the split points within a sequence of recurring user interactions are selected based on quality metric values).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the combination of Rohde and Verpoorten teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 1, including identifies a set of rules corresponding to the subset of paths, wherein each rule of the set of rules reproduces a corresponding partitioning of the sequence of user interface commands into two or more sub-sequences (Verpoorten [Fig. 2 & Sec. 4.2-4.3] discusses the logic of the linear partition graph wherein the system implicitly creates a rule set by identifying split points in repetitive actions to partition the sequence of user interface commands into two or more sub-sequences
Regarding dependent claim 8, the combination of Rohde and Verpoorten teaches the claimed invention as claimed in claim 1, including selecting a best path based on additional evaluation of the subset of paths (Verpoorten [Sec. 5] discusses that the agent will not execute an automated action without a high degree of certainty; Rohde [Col. 8, Lines 24-28] discusses the server determining if the sequence of user interactions comprises a designated minimum number of user interactions; Rohde [Col. 8, Lines 10-15] discusses the server determining if the sequence of a specific subset of paths occurs within a designated timeframe; and thus, the best path is selected based on additional evaluation of the subset of paths).
Regarding claims 9-15, claims 9-15 are system claims that are substantially the same as the method of claims 1-7, respectively. Therefore, claims 9-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-7.
Regarding claims 16-20, claims 16-20 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims that are substantially the same as the method of claims 1-5. Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smutko et al. (US 11562311 B2, published 01/24/2023) ([Abstract] A system is provided for an artificial intelligence engine adapted to identify robotic process automation' opportunities based on return on investment (ROI) potential for automation. The system includes a processor and a computer readable medium configured to perform operations comprising receiving an event log of a plurality of user actions, splitting the plurality of user actions into a plurality of user action sentences, determining a sequence of user actions in the plurality of user action sentences based on a recurrence for the sequence in the plurality of user action sentences, determining a score for the sequence based on a time duration in which the user completes the sequence and based on types of the plurality of user actions in the sequence, and filtering the sequence with a plurality of other sequences).
Crawford et al. (US 8312389 B2, published 11/13/2012) ([Background] Decision logic can be represented by decision tree, directed acyclic graph ("DAG") and exception-based directed acyclic graph ("EDAG") structures. Representations of decision logic can have leaf nodes (sometimes referred to as "action nodes"), a root node (sometimes referred to as a "start node") and nodes that appear between the end nodes and the root nodes (sometimes referred to as "condition nodes" or "intermediate nodes" or "split nodes")).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY S ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-8714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer N Welch can be reached at (571)272-7212. 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.
/RILEY S ACOSTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2143
/JENNIFER N WELCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights