DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 08/07/2026 for Application number 18/476,482. Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 15-17 have been amended and claims 4, 6, 12, 14, and 18 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
generating a name for the particular portion of the process model [using a large language model based on the instructions] can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
annotating the particular portion of the process model with the name can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
iteratively repeating [the receiving], the generating, and the annotating for one or more additional iterations using a next inner most portion of the plurality of portions of the process model as the particular portion can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind.
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “a computer-implemented method”, and “using a large language model based on the instructions”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim further recites: receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) a textual description of a process model of a process, and 3) a particular portion of a plurality of portions of the process model, the particular portion initially being an innermost portion of the plurality of portions of the process model and iteratively repeating the receiving.... These limitations are mere data gathering steps and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 elements of utilizing a computer and large language model to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitations of receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) a textual description of a process model of a process, and 3) a particular portion of a plurality of portions of the process model, the particular portion initially being an innermost portion of the plurality of portions of the process model and iteratively receiving are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the particular portion of the process model comprise sequences of activities of the process model. This limitation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the particular portion of the process model comprise textual descriptions of one or more subprocesses of the process model. This limitation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising: performing one or more process mining tasks based on the names. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising: translating a definition of the process model to the textual description of the process model. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the process is an RPA (robotic process automation) workflow executed by one or more RPA robots. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 9 additionally requires analysis for “A memory storing computer program instructions and at least one processor” however these are additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claims 10-11 and 13, they recite features similar to claims 2-3 and 5 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 15 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 15 additionally requires analysis for “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program instructions, the computer program instructions, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations” however these are additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claims 16-17 and 19-20, they recite features similar to claims 2-3 and 7-8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are objected to as being allowable over prior art if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn. None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 in particular:
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15:
iteratively repeating the receiving, the generating, and the annotating for one or more additional iterations using a next inner most portion of the plurality of portions of the process model as the particular portion.
The closest prior art of record is Berti et al. (“Leveraging Large Language Models for Process Mining (Technical Report)”) which discloses converting process mining artifacts into a format that models can understand and interpret, specifically textual encoding. However, the reference fails to explicitly teach the newly amended feature of iteratively repeating the receiving, the generating, and the annotating for one or more additional iterations using a next inner most portion of the plurality of portions of the process model as the particular portion. Berti’s disclosure does not mention the specific use of a next inner most portion of the plurality of portions of the process model.
No additional prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the particular features recited in claims 1, 9 and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Prior art rejection:
In light of applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. Therefore, the claims would be allowable if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert that the amended portion of “annotating the particular portion of the process model with the name” cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation is recited in a broad manner where under BRI it is merely giving a label to a process of the process model. There are no further details in the claim that would preclude the examiner from making such an interpretation. Furthermore, applicant argues that the claims require the use of a large language model for generating a name for the process model. Examiner further notes that the large language model is recited in a broad and generic manner such that it is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of generating a name. Therefore, it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that amended claim 1 further provides the step of “iteratively repeating the receiving, the generating and the annotating…” thus would direct the claims to a specific technical implementation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely repeating the steps of generating and annotating would still amount to mental processes. Similarly, repeating the receiving would still amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. As noted above and in response to the Step 2A Prong two argument, the claims lack details that reflect any improvements in the implementation of a large language model, rather the claims broadly recite the use of the large language model as a tool to perform the claimed process. Therefore, the examiner asserts the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 is not a generic or conventional use of a computer but represents a specific technological solution for improving operation of the large language model for generating names of portions of the process model. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim lacks details which reflect any improvement in the functioning or operation of a large language model. Other than stating the large language model generates a name, there are no specific details on how the large language model is trained or specifically performs the generation of a name for a particular portion of the process model. Therefore, examiner asserts the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they rely upon the allowability of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/ PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
