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 1-20 are presented for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 7, 9, 11-13 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generating analysis data for an artifact in the plurality of artifacts based on metadata of the artifact; generating a page generation prompt based on the metadata of the artifact and the analysis data for the artifact, the page generation prompt being configured to instruct a large language model to generate a page of a software application” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations,” “a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium tangibly embodying a set of instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, causes the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations”, “using the large language model,” and “obtaining a configuration of a process created via a software development platform, the configuration of the process comprising a plurality of artifacts”, “obtaining a metadata file for the page of the software application based on the page generation prompt…; and providing the metadata file for the page of the software application to the software development platform”. The additional elements “at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations,” “a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium tangibly embodying a set of instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, causes the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations”, “using the large language model,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “obtaining a configuration of a process created via a software development platform, the configuration of the process comprising a plurality of artifacts”, “obtaining a metadata file for the page of the software application based on the page generation prompt…; and providing the metadata file for the page of the software application to the software development platform” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations,” “a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium tangibly embodying a set of instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, causes the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations”, “using the large language model,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “obtaining a configuration of a process created via a software development platform, the configuration of the process comprising a plurality of artifacts”, “obtaining a metadata file for the page of the software application based on the page generation prompt…; and providing the metadata file for the page of the software application to the software development platform” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 17 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “determining that an artifact in the plurality of artifacts satisfies a set of one or more criteria based on the metadata of the artifact, wherein the generating of the analysis data for the artifact, the generating of the prompt, and the obtaining of the metadata file are performed based on the determining that the artifact satisfies the set of one or more criteria” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3 and 18 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “determining that an artifact in the plurality of artifacts satisfies a set of one or more criteria based on the metadata of the artifact, wherein the generating of the analysis data for the artifact, the generating of the prompt, and the obtaining of the metadata file are performed based on the determining that the artifact satisfies the set of one or more criteria” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4 further define the list of artifacts as part of the “identifying” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process since the can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 5 and 19 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generating a suitability determination prompt based on the key-value pairs for the plurality of user interface properties of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings corresponding to the guidelines for suitability, the suitability determination prompt being configured to instruct the large language model to compute an evaluation score indicating a level of suitability of the artifact for mobile applications using the key-value pairs and the list of vector embeddings”, “and determining that the evaluation score satisfies a suitability threshold value” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “using the large language model,” and “obtaining key-value pairs for a plurality of user interface properties of the artifact based on the metadata; obtaining a list of vector embeddings corresponding to guidelines for suitability of user interface elements for mobile applications based on a querying of a vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the evaluation score based on the suitability determination prompt …”. The additional elements “using the large language model,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “obtaining key-value pairs for a plurality of user interface properties of the artifact based on the metadata; obtaining a list of vector embeddings corresponding to guidelines for suitability of user interface elements for mobile applications based on a querying of a vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the evaluation score based on the suitability determination prompt …” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “using the large language model,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “obtaining key-value pairs for a plurality of user interface properties of the artifact based on the metadata; obtaining a list of vector embeddings corresponding to guidelines for suitability of user interface elements for mobile applications based on a querying of a vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the evaluation score based on the suitability determination prompt …” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further define “analysis” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process since the can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 7 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generating an analysis generation prompt based on the manifest file of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings, the analysis generation prompt being configured to instruct the large language model to generate the analysis of the structure of the artifact using the manifest file of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “using the large language model,” and “obtaining key-value pairs from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the analysis of the structure of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt using the large language model…”. The additional elements “using the large language model,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “obtaining key-value pairs from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the analysis of the structure of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt using the large language model…” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “using the large language model,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “obtaining key-value pairs from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the analysis of the structure of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt using the large language model…” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 further define “analysis” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process since the can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 9 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generating an analysis generation prompt based on the manifest file of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings, the analysis generation prompt being configured to instruct the large language model to generate the analysis of the input and output parameters of the artifact using the manifest file of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “using the large language model,” and “obtaining key-value pairs for the input and output parameters of the artifact from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs of the input and output parameters of the artifact”, “obtaining the analysis of the input and output parameters of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt”. The additional elements “using the large language model,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element ““obtaining key-value pairs for the input and output parameters of the artifact from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs of the input and output parameters of the artifact”, “obtaining the analysis of the input and output parameters of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt…” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “using the large language model,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “obtaining key-value pairs for the input and output parameters of the artifact from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs of the input and output parameters of the artifact”, “obtaining the analysis of the input and output parameters of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt…” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 further define “analysis” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process since the can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 11 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generating an analysis generation prompt based on the manifest file of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings, the analysis generation prompt being configured to instruct the large language model to generate the analysis of the input and output parameters of the artifact using the manifest file of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “using the large language model,” and “obtaining key-value pairs from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the analysis of the business logic of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt …”. The additional elements “using the large language model,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “obtaining key-value pairs from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the analysis of the business logic of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt …” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “using the large language model,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “obtaining key-value pairs from a manifest file of the artifact; obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documentation for robotic process automation software based on a querying of the vector database using the key-value pairs”, “obtaining the analysis of the business logic of the artifact based on the analysis generation prompt …” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 12 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generate the page of the software application using the metadata of the artifact and the list of vector embeddings” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “wherein the page generation prompt is configured to instruct the large language model,” and “obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documents of domain knowledge for no-code development of mobile applications based on a querying of the vector database using the analysis data…”. The additional elements “wherein the page generation prompt is configured to instruct the large language model,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documents of domain knowledge for no-code development of mobile applications based on a querying of the vector database using the analysis data…” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “wherein the page generation prompt is configured to instruct the large language model,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “obtaining a list of vector embeddings from a vector database of vector embeddings corresponding to documents of domain knowledge for no-code development of mobile applications based on a querying of the vector database using the analysis data…” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further define the “documents of domain knowledge” as part of the “obtaining” function set for the in the claims from which they depend on which does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 further define “metadata file” as part of the “generating” function set forth in the claims from which they depend, thus, are also considered to recite a mental process since the can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 15 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generating a build version of the software application based on the metadata file using the software development platform” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “deploying the build version of the software application to an application lifecycle management service” which does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “deploying the build version of the software application to an application lifecycle management service” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-5 and 17-19 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 2 and 17 recited the limitation “the generating of the prompt, and the obtaining of the metadata file are performed based on the determining that the artifact satisfies the set of one or more criteria.” The term "the prompt" lacks clear antecedent basis. The term "prompt" is not introduced in claim 1 or claim 2; claim 1 introduces "a page generation prompt," but "the prompt" is a broader or shortened reference that could be ambiguous, especially if interpreted as referring to a different prompt.
Dependent Claims 3-5 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to cure the deficiencies of their independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigore (US 20250199774 A1) in view of Singh (US 20230385085 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Grigore (US 20250199774 A1) teaches
A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a configuration of a process created via a software development platform, the configuration of the process comprising a plurality of artifacts; (Para [0026] "The input source can take various forms. For instance, a user may enter a natural language sentence, provide a source document (e.g., a spreadsheet file, a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file... a Portable Document Format (PDF) file... etc.), write pseudocode for the desired task, etc.") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches obtaining a configuration of a process (input source like pseudocode or document for desired task) created via a software development platform (RPA developer platform), the configuration comprising a plurality of artifacts (documents, pseudocode, drawings), as the input is used to generate RPA workflows which are process configurations;
generating analysis data for an artifact in the plurality of artifacts based on metadata of the artifact; (Para [0031] "The cognitive AI layer may use a CV model to understand what graphical elements and text are present in the screen, and a generative AI model may create a software application that includes these graphical elements...") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches generating analysis data (understanding graphical elements and text) for an artifact (drawing of UI or process) based on metadata of the artifact (graphical elements, text in drawing), as the AI analyzes the input artifact to generate output;
generating a page generation prompt based on the metadata of the artifact and the analysis data for the artifact, the page generation prompt being configured to instruct a large language model to generate a page of a software application; (Para [0031] "a diagram representing a design of a screen may be used to automatically generate an associated application. Consider the case where a user has designed a Visio® diagram of a UI for a screen... The cognitive AI layer may use a CV model to understand what graphical elements and text are present in the screen, and a generative AI model may create a software application that includes these graphical elements...") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches generating a page generation prompt (input to generative AI model based on understood elements) based on the metadata and analysis data (graphical elements, text), the prompt configured to instruct a large language model (generative AI model, which includes LLMs) to generate a page of a software application (generate application with UI elements);
obtaining a metadata file for the page of the software application based on the page generation prompt using the large language model; (Para [0032] "a user may submit a diagram of a desired process to automate. The high level steps of this process may then be generated as an RPA workflow. For instance, the generative AI model may be trained to understand text in the steps and the associations therebetween as shown by connectors.") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches obtaining a metadata file (generated RPA workflow, which includes metadata for activities) for the page (process steps in workflow) based on the prompt using the large language model (generative AI model);
providing the metadata file for the page of the software application to the software development platform. (Para [0059] "The output from the cognitive AI layer may include... a newly generated RPA workflow...") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches providing the metadata file (generated RPA workflow) to the software development platform (RPA designer or development environment).
Grigore did not specifically teach
a plurality of artifacts in a process configuration.
However, Singh (US 20230385085 A1) teaches
a plurality of artifacts in a process configuration. (Para [0024] "User interactions extracted from data collected from multiple computing systems... combined into sequences associated with tasks.") Examiner Comments: Singh teaches a plurality of artifacts (user interactions, sequences) in a process configuration (extracted common processes), as interactions are artifacts forming the process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Grigore’s teaching into Singh’s in order to enhance process extraction by incorporating detailed user interaction artifacts, thereby improving the accuracy and completeness of automated RPA generation by using generative artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) models to determine sequences of user interactions with computing systems, extract common processes, and generate robotic process automation (RPA) robots (Singh [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 2, Grigore and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Grigore further teaches further comprising: determining that an artifact in the plurality of artifacts satisfies a set of one or more criteria based on the metadata of the artifact, wherein the generating of the analysis data for the artifact, the generating of the prompt, and the obtaining of the metadata file are performed based on the determining that the artifact satisfies the set of one or more criteria. (Para [0027] "The cognitive AI layer may determine that the type of the PDF is an invoice... The cognitive AI layer may then suggest an automation to the user and automatically generate the automation, if desired.") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches determining that the artifact (PDF document) satisfies criteria (type is invoice) based on metadata (content type), and performing generation based on that (suggest and generate automation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Grigore’s teaching into Singh’s in order to enhance process extraction by incorporating detailed user interaction artifacts, thereby improving the accuracy and completeness of automated RPA generation by using generative artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) models to determine sequences of user interactions with computing systems, extract common processes, and generate robotic process automation (RPA) robots (Singh [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 3, Grigore, and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 2.
Grigore further teaches wherein the determining that the artifact satisfies the set of one or more criteria comprises: identifying an artifact type of the artifact based on the metadata of the artifact; and determining that the artifact type of the artifact is included in a list of artifact types. (Para [0027] "The cognitive AI layer may determine that the type of the PDF is an invoice...") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches identifying artifact type (invoice) based on metadata, and determining if included in list (types suitable for automation).
Regarding Claim 4, Grigore, and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 3.
Singh further teaches wherein the list of artifact types comprises a decision, a form, and a trigger. (Para [0113] " Workflows may include user-defined activities 420, API-driven activities 430, AI/ML activities 440, and/or and UI automation activities 450") Examiner Comments: Singh teaches artifact types including decision (condition in workflow), form (UI automation), trigger (driver-based interactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Grigore’s teaching into Singh’s in order to enhance process extraction by incorporating detailed user interaction artifacts, thereby improving the accuracy and completeness of automated RPA generation by using generative artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) models to determine sequences of user interactions with computing systems, extract common processes, and generate robotic process automation (RPA) robots (Singh [Summary]).
Regarding Claim 6, Grigore and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Grigore further teaches wherein the analysis data comprises an analysis of a structure of the artifact. (Para [0031] "The cognitive AI layer may use a CV model to understand what graphical elements and text are present in the screen...") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches analysis data as analysis of structure (graphical elements and text structure) of the artifact (screen drawing).
Regarding Claim 8, Grigore and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Grigore further teaches wherein the analysis data comprises an analysis of input and output parameters of the artifact. (Para [0027] "Consider the case where a PDF is an invoice. The cognitive AI layer may determine that the type of the PDF is an invoice... This may involve creating an RPA workflow with the appropriate activities...") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches analysis of input/output (invoice fields as parameters) of the artifact (PDF).
Regarding Claim 10, Grigore and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Grigore further teaches wherein the analysis data comprises an analysis of a business logic of the artifact. (Para [0032] "the generative AI model may be trained to understand text in the steps and the associations therebetween as shown by connectors.") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches analysis of business logic (steps and associations) of the artifact (process diagram).
Regarding Claim 14, Grigore and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Grigore further teaches wherein the metadata file comprises a specification of one or more user interface controls. (Para [0034] "some embodiments leverage natural language processing (NLP) to automate form building... a form is automatically built or other code is automatically generated...") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches metadata file (generated form or code) comprising specification of UI controls (form elements).
Regarding Claim 15, Grigore and Singh teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Grigore further teaches further comprising: generating a build version of the software application based on the metadata file using the software development platform; and deploying the build version of the software application to an application lifecycle management service. (Para [0163] "If the user accepts the automation at 1250, the automation is generated at 1260.") Examiner Comments: Grigore teaches generating build (generated automation) and deploying (implement in RPA workflow), as RPA platform manages lifecycle.
Regarding Claim 16, is the system claim corresponding to claim 1, taught by the same references.
Regarding Claim 17, is the system claim corresponding to claim 2, taught by the same references.
Regarding Claim 18, is the system claim corresponding to claim 3-4, taught by the same references.
Regarding Claim 20, is the medium claim corresponding to claim 1, taught by the same references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SOLTANZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-3451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/AMIR SOLTANZADEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191