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 . 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to communication filed on 2/26/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/13/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Objections
Claims 7, 14 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 7, 14 recite: “…wherein the portion of the relevant participants are removed from the another plurality of the relevant participants of the active process”, [bolded emphasis added].
Claims 7, 14 are recommend to recite, as an example only: “…wherein the portion of the relevant participants are removed from another plurality of the relevant participants of the active process”.
Appropriate correction is required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
New claim objections are applied.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
New grounds for rejection under 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Applicant argues on page 11 of remarks 2/26/2026:
“Applicant's amended claim 1 is directed towards "capturing an active process with a plurality of components based on a plurality of event log files, wherein the plurality of event log files include manufacturing metrics for the plurality of components for each step of a manufacturing process that is the active process," "transforming the active process by feeding data associated with the feedback from the portion of the relevant participants into a workflow, wherein the data defines one or more variables between a data processing tool and the software for the inventory management and the logistical handling," and "generating, based on the transforming, a new process that resolves the ambiguity in the plurality of event log files, wherein the new process is accelerated over the active process", which are not mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As such, Applicant submits that since the claims are not categorized as "concepts performed in the human mind" (the Office Action, page 5), the claims do not recite a judicial exception and are thus patent-eligible under Prong One.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds Applicant that Examiner also points to MPEP2106.04(a)(2) III C finding that computer aided processes such as: 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process can still be considered to recite a mental process. Assuming, arguendo, that the amended limitations are sufficient to distinguish the claims from the judicial exception abstract grouping Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III), which Examiner does not, the claims as amended still fall within the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). The claims as amended still describe or set forth process mining for potential issues in business process models (Applicant spec. ¶ [0006], [0008]), seeking feedback from relevant stakeholders (Applicant spec. ¶ [0012]), and thus improving the business process model (Applicant spec. ¶ [0010]), which can be viewed as mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant argues on page 14 of remarks 2/26/2026:
“…Applicant submits that amended claim 1 (along with claims 8 and 15) recites an improvement to technology by requiring, "capturing an active process with a plurality of components based on a plurality of event log files, wherein the plurality of event log files include manufacturing metrics for the plurality of components for each step of a manufacturing process that is the active process," "transforming the active process by feeding data associated with the feedback from the portion of the relevant participants into a workflow, wherein the data defines one or more variables between a data processing tool and the software for the inventory management and the logistical handling," and "generating, based on the transforming, a new process that resolves the ambiguity in the plurality of event log files, wherein the new process is accelerated over the active process" which results in "enhancing and accelerating process times for various industries ranging from banking to manufacturing through ambiguity resolution in event log files" (Applicant's as-filed Specification, [0006]).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended present the new additional computer-based element “software for inventory management and logistical handling”. The functions of the additional element are applied to “transforming the active process by feeding data associated with the feedback from the portion of relevant participants into a workflow”, thereby enabling “generating, based on the transforming, a new process that resolves ambiguity in the plurality of event log files, wherein the new process is accelerated over the active process”. The additional element is still recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of collecting feedback and feeding it to a workflow, modifying or generating a new workflow, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i).
Furthermore, the accelerating of a workflow or business process as described in the claims as amended indeed constitute a technical solution implemented through the additional computer-based elements. However, rather than presenting a technical solution to a technical problem, the claims appear to present a technical solution to an entrepreneurial problem, namely “enhancing and accelerating process times for various industries ranging from banking to manufacturing” as noted by Applicant and described in specification ¶ [0006].
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues on page 16 of remarks 2/26/2026:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Pellant combined with Reh does not disclose, teach, or suggest [claim 1 limitations as amended] as required by Applicant's claim 1.
The Advisory Action dated February 5, 2026 on page 4 stated, "Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of 'third party software' without additional significant specificity in the claims is analogous to both 'a machine ... or another appropriate entity that can carry out an action in the process' and a computing environment in which a system operates and/or environment for a group of units and individuals." Applicant has amended claim 1 providing specify by removing "third party software" language and further defining "the software for the inventor management and the logistic handling" for "a manufacturing process that is the active process." With the added specificity, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is not taught by Pellant combined with Reh.”
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. Additional support for teaching the amended claim limitations can be found in the previously presented prior art reference Reh et al. US 20200293564 A1, hereinafter Reh at Fig. 2, ¶ [0023], [0026], and [0054]. Additional details and citations are included in the 103 rejection section below.
Accordingly, new grounds for rejection under 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments. The 103 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a computer program product or article of manufacture which is a statutory category. Examiner notes that the computer program product should not be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se in view of Applicant specification (¶ [0015]).
Claims 15-20 are directed to a system or machine which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth mitigating risk, as well as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) including: “capturing an active process with a plurality of components based on a plurality of event log files, wherein the plurality of event log files include manufacturing metrics for the plurality of components for each step of a manufacturing process that is the active process”, “capturing a plurality of relevant participants of the active process”, “identifying… ambiguity associated with at least one component of the active process…”, “receiving feedback from the portion of relevant participants to resolve the ambiguity”, “transforming the active process by feeding data associated with the feedback from the portion of relevant participants into a workflow…”, and “generating, based on the transforming, a new process that resolves the ambiguity in the plurality of event log files, wherein the new process is accelerated over the active process”. Process mining for potential issues in business process models, seeking feedback from relevant stakeholders, and thus improving the business process model falls within mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles within the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II), as well as observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion as they pertain to concepts performed in the human mind under the larger abstract grouping of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 8, 15 recite the following additional elements: “computer”, “computer program product”, “computer-readable storage media”, “computer system”, “processors”, “computer-readable memories”, “data processing tool”, and “software for inventory management and logistical handling”. The functions of these additional elements include examples such as “capturing an active process with a plurality of components”, “capturing a plurality of relevant participants”, “identifying… ambiguity associated with at least one component”, “sending a poll to at least a portion of relevant participants”, “receiving feedback from the portion of relevant participants”, and “generating a new process by transforming the active process”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of searching for and identifying data, polling participants, modifying a workflow, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17 recite the additional elements “black boxes”, and “API endpoints”, “third party integrations”. The functions of these additional elements include “[being used to determine] ambiguity associated with the at least one component of the active process”.
The additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of identifying data and patterns in data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Further, dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 1, 8, 15 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1, 8, 15 along with their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “computer”, “computer program product”, “computer-readable storage media”, “computer system”, “processors”, “computer-readable memories”, “data processing tool”, and “third party software” to capabilities such as receiving, aggregating, generating, weighing, determining, and capturing various forms of data such as user opt-in selections, feedback, commonality scores, usernames, process steps, flow components, diagram adjustments, expertise levels, event log files, participants, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-20 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by
Pellant et al. US 20160253606 A1, hereinafter Pellant, in view of
Reh et al. US 20200293564 A1, hereinafter Reh. As per,
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15: Pellant teaches:
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method (Pellant ¶ [0024]) comprising:
(Claim 8) A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media (Pellant ¶ [0048]); and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer readable storage media, to perform operations comprising:
(Claim 15) A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer readable storage media (Pellant ¶ [0048]); and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising:
capturing, by a process mining tool (claims 8, 15), an active process with a plurality of components based on a plurality of event log files, [..] (Pellant ¶ [0019]: The event history database can support event logging and may maintain comments and modifications associated with the business process design or business process improvement. ¶ [0033]: FIG. 5 is a flow diagram 500 depicting communications within a collaborative group process discovery scenario in accordance with one embodiment. The Social Discovery Module 152 can identify relevant events that should be pushed for commenting to interested parties);
capturing, by the process mining tool (claims 8, 15), a plurality of relevant participants of the active process (Pellant mid-¶ [0033]: According to certain embodiments, the swim lane 400 can identify members of the participant group who are involved in the execution and evaluation of the new process. ¶ [0046]: In block 660, the process discovery server 150 can autonomously discover participant groups. Autonomous Social relevant group discovery can discover groups based on their similar behavior or area of interests with regard to social interactions with process design/refinement. Groups of users may be automatically defined based on their expertise and their areas of interests.);
identifying, based on the plurality of event log files, ambiguity associated with at least one component of the active process, [..] (Pellant mid-¶ [0033]: In block 640, the process discovery server 150 can develop socially active process elements for heat mapping. The heat map 300 can display an overview of the most popular and/or contentious [EN: thus ambiguous] issues within the process. These issues may relate to suggested modifications, comments, agreements, or disagreements generated by each event or activity. ¶ [0043]: The dynamic heat maps 300 can support detecting anomalies or special situations where the process needs to change. They can also support detecting tasks or activities that have not been well developed/implemented [EN: thus ambiguous] and may need special attention);
receiving feedback from a portion of relevant participants to resolve the ambiguity (Pellant ¶ [0033]: …The Social Discovery Module 152 can identify relevant events that should be pushed [EN: polled] for commenting to interested parties. ¶ [0038]: Utilizing crowd-sourced process discovery can enable process participants 130 to contribute logical next steps [EN: resolution] or user stories based on the aggregate knowledge and experience of the process participants 130 or crowd. Results of crowd queries [EN: polls] and responses [EN: feedback] may be compiled to provide process owners 120 with details of the various crowd-sourced inputs. ¶ [0046]: …The users within those groups can be notified [EN: polled] to make contributions to processes related to those expertise or areas of interest);
[..].
Although Pellant teaches capturing a process and participants, identifying areas for improvement based on event logs, and polling and receiving feedback from participants, Pellant does not specifically teach the process being a manufacturing process, the ambiguity being associated with software for inventory management and logistical handling, automatically transforming the processes with data feeds between a third party software and a data processing tool, thereby accelerating the process.
However, Reh in analogous are of business process discovery and improvement teaches or suggests:
wherein the plurality of event log files include manufacturing metrics for the plurality of components for each step of a manufacturing process that is the active process (Reh end-¶ [0038]: For example, an entry of transaction data 218 for a manufacture event of the domain 110 may include a unique identifier that takes the form of a hash or a universal resource identifier (URI) as the primary key, a type identifier that identifies the type of process (e.g., the type is a manufacture sequence), metadata associated with the entry, objects and entities associated with the manufacture event (e.g., product codes, material identifiers, etc.), and timestamps for the key events in the process (time for raw material received, time for item completion, etc.));
[..]
wherein the ambiguity is associated with software for inventory management and logistical handling (Reh mid-¶ [0023]: A resource planning application 115 may be a process management software that allows a domain 110 to integrate various functions related to technology, services, human resources, and transactions. Functions of a resource planning application 115 may include accounting, finance, purchasing, procurement, production and manufacturing, inventory management, distribution, supply chain management, services, orders from customers, corporate compliance and governance, customer services, human resources, reporting, and analytics, etc. A resource planning application 115 may collect, store, and manage data associated with various business activities);
[..]
transforming the active process by feeding data associated with the feedback from the portion of the relevant participants into a workflow, wherein the data defines one or more variables between a data processing tool and the software for the inventory management and the logistical handling (See Reh Fig. 2: “Domain” representing a third party software, including Resource Planning Application, and “Computing Server” representing a data processing tool. Mid-¶ [0026]: For example, the computing server 120 may provide recommendations to personnel in the domain 110 to carry out tasks that streamline the process. In another case, the computing server 120 may automatically update the workflow of the process so that the improvement may be automatically implemented. ¶ [0054]: The action recommendation engine 258 may generate recommendations and courses of action to be taken that will improve a process model [EN: workflow]. In one embodiment, the action recommendation engine 258 may automatically route the recommendation [EN: feed data] to the appropriate agent. An agent can be personnel of the domain 110, a machine, a department of the domain 110, or another appropriate entity that can carry out an action in the process. The action recommendation engine 258 may extract process models 222 and automatically assign actions [EN: variables] to appropriate agents. The action recommendation engine 258 may generate a recommendation for the domain 110 to take in order to improve a process model 222. For example, the action recommendation engine 258 may recommend skipping a step in the process model 222 to streamline the process, changing personnel in a certain step of a process, altering the route in a process, etc. Mid-¶ [0023]: A resource planning application 115 may be a process management software that allows a domain 110 to integrate various functions related to technology, services, human resources, and transactions. Functions of a resource planning application 115 may include accounting, finance, purchasing, procurement, production and manufacturing, inventory management, distribution, supply chain management, … etc. A resource planning application 115 may collect, store, and manage data associated with various business activities); and
generating, based on the transforming, a new process that resolves the ambiguity in the plurality of event log files, wherein the new process is accelerated over the active process (Reh mid-¶ [0038]: A process may include multiple events…. The instances of the event may be referred to as activities. Activities recorded [EN: event logs] in the transaction data 218 often may be associated with timestamps…. Mid-¶ [0054]: The action recommendation engine 258 may also automatically route action items in a process model 222 to an agent that improves the process. For example, the action recommendation engine 258 may identify that agent A is more efficient [EN: accelerated] than agent B due to agent B's backlog. The action recommendation engine 258 may automatically route a task that can be done by either agent A or agent B to agent A).
Reh and Pellant are found as analogous art of business process discovery and improvement. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Pellant’s business process crowd sourcing system and method to have included Reh teachings around manufacturing processes, the ambiguity being associated with software for inventory management and logistical handling, and automatically improving processes with data feeds between third party software and data processing tool. The benefit of these additional features would have optimized process improvement with automation (Reh ¶ [0003-0004]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Pellant in view of Reh (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of business process discovery and improvement. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Pellant in view of Reh above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 4, 11, 18: Pellant / Reh teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Pellant further teaches:
receiving a user opt-in selection for each relevant participants from the plurality of relevant participants who is a subject matter expert in a field associated with a given process (Pellant mid-¶ [0036]: Process participants 130 wishing to contribute [EN: opting in] to process refinement may replicate the process to a new layer within their own context. ¶ [0039]: Once the process owner 120 published or posts a process into the process discovery server 150, it may be available for review and collaboration by the various relevant process participants 130. The process participants 130 can view the layers of the process they are interested in. Mid-¶ [0044]: In block 650, the process discovery server 150 can provide social push notifications…. The notification may be provided specifically to those users who are both relevant and interested).
Regarding Claim 5, 12, 19: Pellant / Reh teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Pellant further teaches:
aggregating the feedback received from the portion of the relevant participants (Pellant ¶ [0038]: Utilizing crowd-sourced process discovery can enable process participants 130 to contribute logical next steps or user stories based on the aggregate knowledge and experience of the process participants 130 or crowd. Results of crowd queries [EN: polls] and responses may be compiled to provide process owners 120 with details of the various crowd-sourced inputs); and
generating a commonality score (Pellant mid-¶ [0042]: The visual indicators on the heat map 300 can use multiple intensity levels [EN: commonality scores] to indicate various levels of social activity. For example, more active elements may display with faster flashing, brighter highlighting, larger size, and so forth. These levels may be scaled dynamically. In addition to use of dynamic scaling to indicate level of activity, the heat map 300 may also display visual descriptions of changes or events within a process)
that includes
usernames involved (Pellant ¶ [0021]: The metrics module 156 can support generation of heat maps, tracking gamification elements, monitoring power users, and maintaining a metrics database. The metrics data base may be associated with the data repository 158. The metrics module 156 can Support gamification, for example by scoring process participants 130 to encourage social participation. The metrics module 156 can identify power users among the process participants 130 as high scoring or high participation individuals),
potentially missing process steps (Pellant end-¶ [0043]: The dynamic heat maps 300 can Support detecting anomalies or special situations where the process needs to change. They can also support detecting tasks or activities that have not been well developed / implemented and may need special attention),
additional business process model and notation (BPMN) flow components, and diagram adjustments based on the aggregating (Pellant ¶ [0033]: While editing the new process, the developer team 140 can create new swim lanes 400 on the system. According to certain embodiments, the swim lane 400 can identify members of the participant group who are involved in the execution and evaluation of the new process. The project team can create new process elements. mid-¶ [0044]: The process discovery server 150 can detect when a process participant 130 makes a contribution to the process. Such a contribution may be a Suggested modification, a new shape/step/element [EN: additional flow component / diagram adjustment], a comment, an attached a document, or so forth. [EN: also see BPMN-style models in Figs. 2, 3, 4 and related text]).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Pellant / Reh in further view of
Dixit US 20210216925 A1, hereinafter Dixit. As per,
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16: Pellant / Reh teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Although Pellant teaches process mining using relevant participants for relevant activities, Pellant does not specifically teach the participants being subject matter experts with associated levels of expertise.
However, Dixit in analogous art of business process discovery and improvement teaches or suggests:
wherein each relevant participant from the plurality of relevant participants is a subject matter expert with an associated level of subject matter expertise (Dixit ¶ [0006]: Another way of generating a process model, which may, for example, be used to construct a clinical care pathway, is to obtain input from multiple participants who perform some role in the process. For example, a process model may be constructed by querying medical professionals who are likely to be involved in the treatment of a patient suffering from a particular type of cancer. Each medical professional may provide a list of actions that need to be included in a clinical care pathway. The multiple lists may then be compiled into a single clinical care pathway, or process model. End-¶ [0054]: The knowledge-based metric defines, foreach activity in the third plurality of activities, at least one requirement that must be met. Such a requirement may be based on the knowledge [EN: level of subject matter expertise] of an expert, or on a particular requirement set by the user. For example, a user may require that a particular activity can only be added to the process model if it does not involve the patient moving. Those activities which do not meet the defined requirement (e.g. which do require the patient to move) would rate relatively lower according to this metric).
Dixit, Reh and Pellant are found as analogous art of business process discovery and improvement. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Pellant / Reh’s business process crowd sourcing system and method to have included Dixit’s teachings around process mining using subject matter experts with associated levels of expertise. The benefit of these additional features would have improved accuracy and reduced chances of missing key information when developing a process model (Dixit ¶ [0006-0007]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of business process discovery and improvement. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17: Pellant / Reh teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Although Pellant teaches finding ambiguity in a process, Pellant does not specifically teach the ambiguity being associated with black boxes, API endpoints, third party integrations, unknown approval steps, or offline steps.
However, Dixit in analogous art of business process discovery and improvement teaches or suggests:
wherein the ambiguity associated with the at least one component of the active process is determined based on one or more of black boxes, application programming interface (API) endpoints, third party integrations, unknown approval steps, and offline steps (Dixit ¶ [0048]: A generated process model can be run (i.e. executed) using data from an existing or previously-performed process (e.g. data from the event log), in order to determine the location of any bottlenecks in the generated process model. Mid-¶ [0348]: The information from the event log (x) is used by a black box process discovery algorithm (y) to come up with different recommendations for the newly selected activity/activities (3)…. Auto-complete recursively adds activities to the process model by using the black box process discovery algorithm (y) by selecting the top ranked recommendation until some termination condition is met. [Also see Fig. 34 and related text]).
Dixit, Reh and Pellant are found as analogous art of business process discovery and improvement. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Pellant / Reh’s business process crowd sourcing system and method to have included Dixit’s teachings around determining ambiguity based on black box process discovery. The benefit of these additional features would have aided in the creation of more effective process models based on existing, tried and tested processes. (Dixit ¶ [0046]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of business process discovery and improvement. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20: Pellant / Reh teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Although Pellant teaches process mining using relevant participants for relevant activities, Pellant does not specifically teach weighing the participant feedback based on level of expertise.
However, Dixit in analogous art of business process discovery and improvement teaches or suggests:
weighing the feedback received from the portion of the relevant participants based on an associated level of subject matter expertise for each participant from the portion of the relevant participants (Dixit ¶ [0006]: Another way of generating a process model, which may, for example, be used to construct a clinical care pathway, is to obtain input [EN: feedback] from multiple participants who perform some role in the process. For example, a process model may be constructed by querying medical professionals who are likely to be involved in the treatment of a patient suffering from a particular type of cancer. Each medical professional may provide a list of actions that need to be included in a clinical care pathway. The multiple lists may then be compiled into a single clinical care pathway, or process model. End-¶ [0054]: The knowledge-based metric [EN: weight] defines, for each activity in the third plurality of activities, at least one requirement that must be met. Such a requirement may be based on the knowledge [EN: level of subject matter expertise] of an expert, or on a particular requirement set by the user. For example, a user may require that a particular activity can only be added to the process model if it does not involve the patient moving. Those activities which do not meet the defined requirement (e.g. which do require the patient to move) would rate relatively lower according to this metric. ¶ [0055]: The metrics may be scored [EN: weighed] between O and 1).
Dixit, Reh and Pellant are found as analogous art of business process discovery and improvement. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Pellant / Reh’s business process crowd sourcing system and method to have included Dixit’s teachings around weighing the participant feedback based on level of expertise. The benefit of these additional features would have improved accuracy and reduced chances of missing key information when developing a process model (Dixit ¶ [0046]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of business process discovery and improvement. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claims 7, 14: Pellant / Reh teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Pellant further teaches:
[..]
capturing, by the process mining tool (claim 14 only), another plurality of relevant participants of the active process, wherein the portion of the relevant participants are removed from [the] another plurality of relevant participants of the active process (See Pellant disclosure of unique, mutually exclusive layers where participants can provide feedback and propose changes, which provides the capability to poll separate groups of participants: mid-¶ [0040]: As process participants 130 work on a process, the process discovery server 150 can save any changes or comments into their respective unique layer. Once the layers are submitted, the process owner 120 can view the multiple layers to visualize, along with the original process, any changes and comments that were created by the process participants 130. The process owner 120 can compare and select crowd sourced Suggestions for merging into the original process. Once collaboration with the process participants 130 has been completed, the process discovery server 150 will contain the original published process along with the customized, crowd sourced versions).
Although Pellant teaches process mining with distinct, separate groups of participants, Pellant does not specifically teach determining when additional data is required and then continuing the process mining.
However, Dixit in analogous art of business process discovery and improvement teaches or suggests:
determining whether additional data is required based on an amount of the feedback received from the portion of the relevant participants; responsive to determining the additional data is required, capturing, by the process mining tool (claim 14 only), the active process with the plurality of components based on the plurality of event log files (Dixit mid-¶ [0364]: The user sets the number of activities that should be added and a threshold for minimum fitness and precision values. The user can also update the weights for fitness and precision scores used for ranking the recommendations. Once these parameters are set, the auto-discovery feature iteratively adds activities to the process model, while the thresholds are met, by choosing the first ranked process model from the list of recommendations. The process models of the activities which did not satisfy the threshold criteria are skipped. After the desired number of activities are added, the user can resume the interactive process discovery); and
[..].
Dixit, Reh and Pellant are found as analogous art of business process discovery and improvement. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Pellant / Reh’s business process crowd sourcing system and method to have included Dixit’s teachings around determining when additional data is required and then continuing the process mining. The benefit of these additional features would have improved accuracy and reduced chances of missing key information when developing a process model (Dixit ¶ [0046]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of business process discovery and improvement. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Pellant in view of Dixit and Reh above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Lakshmanan; Geetika T. et al. US 20140350994 A1, Providing best practice workflow to aid user in completing project that is constantly updated based on user feedback.
BUFFETT; Scott US 20130035976 A1, Process mining for anomalous cases.
Sofer; Oded et al. US 20210256433 A1, Assisting and automating workflows using structured log events.
Abraham-Fuchs, Klaus et al. US 20040260593 A1, System and user interface supporting workflow operation improvement.
Garcia; Fernando Martel US 20160292248 A1, Methods, systems, and articles of
manufacture for the management and identification of causal knowledge.
Miller; Michael P. et al. US 20060235732 A1, Accelerated process improvement framework.
Carpenter; Stephen et al. US 20250053574 A1, Connector for process mining and other tools.
Sanders; Aaron M. US 6411936 B1, Enterprise value enhancement system and method.
BHARTI H et al. US 20220180579 A1, Method for generating work-flow diagram from technology specific literature, involves determining semantics for components defined in the technology specific literature using computer, and associating components to symbols.
CHAKRA A et al. US 20170344926 A1, Computer-based method for logging events in computer system, involves displaying workflow on log aggregation tool where workflow includes corrective action items and time period for completion of each of corrective action items.
Represas et al. US 20230195505 A1, Transaction processing computer system with multi-channel communication control and decision support.
Graefe; Matthias et al. US 20240177030 A1, Identifying unkown decision making factors from communications data.
BAND; Noam US 20140129295 A1, System for automated process mining.
De; Radha Mohan et al. US 20240144144 A1, Machine-generated process transformation.
Qu et al. CN 112508320 B, An automated process staging workflow for batch production.
P. M. Dixit, J. C. A. M. Buijs and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "ProDiGy: Human-in-the-loop process discovery," 2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), Nantes, France, 2018, pp. 1-12,
doi: 10.1109/RCIS.2018.8406657.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at (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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 June 8, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights