DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to Amendments files 04/29/2026.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1-20 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.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) determining an intent associated with the user input based on the one or
more criteria, wherein the intent comprises a plurality of parameters;
(b) mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space, wherein each pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns comprises respective defining parameters corresponding to respective predefined intents;
(c) …generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in response to the user input based on the mapping, wherein the one or more pattern vectors comprise a set of defining parameters that match the plurality of parameters of the intent;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
(2) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
(3) automatically
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human determining an intent and parameters associated using user input in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determining an intent and parameters associated using user input. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to map the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
(2) automatically
The additional elements (1-2) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of generating a user interface without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating a workflow based on user inputs with no restriction on how the generated user interface solves a technical problem is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
The additional element (3) is a mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
(2) automatically
The additional elements (1-2) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating a workflow based on user inputs with no restriction on how the generated user interface solves a technical problem is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
The additional element (3) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive user input in a natural language format. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer/computing components and insignificant extra-solution activities. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to a system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 8 recites the limitations:
(a) determining an intent associated with the user input based on the one or
more criteria, wherein the intent comprises a plurality of parameters;
(b) mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space, wherein each pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns comprises respective defining parameters corresponding to respective predefined intents;
(c)… generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in response to the user input based on the mapping, wherein the one or more pattern vectors comprise a set of defining parameters that match the plurality of parameters of the intent;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) one or more processors; and memory accessible by the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
(2) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
(3) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
(4) automatically
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human determining an intent and parameters associated using user input in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determining an intent and parameters associated using user input. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to map the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) one or more processors; and memory accessible by the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
(2) automatically
The additional elements (1-2) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of generating a user interface without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating a workflow based on user inputs with no restriction on how the generated user interface solves a technical problem is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
The additional element (4) is a mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) one or more processors; and memory accessible by the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
(2) automatically
The additional elements (1-2) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating a workflow based on user inputs with no restriction on how the generated user interface solves a technical problem is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
The additional element (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive user input in a natural language format. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer/computing components and insignificant extra-solution activities. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 15 recites the limitations:
(a) determining an intent associated with the user input based on the one or
more criteria, wherein the intent comprises a plurality of parameters;
(b) mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space, wherein each pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns comprises respective defining parameters corresponding to respective predefined intents;
(c) … generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in response to the user input based on the mapping, wherein the one or more pattern vectors comprise a set of defining parameters that match the plurality of parameters of the intent;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) A tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
(2) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
(3) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
(4) automatically
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human determining an intent and parameters associated using user input in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determining an intent and parameters associated using user input. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to map the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) A tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
(2) automatically
The additional elements (1-2) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of generating a user interface without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating a workflow based on user inputs with no restriction on how the generated user interface solves a technical problem is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
The additional element (4) is a mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) A tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
(2) automatically
The additional elements (1-2) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating a workflow based on user inputs with no restriction on how the generated user interface solves a technical problem is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generated user interface solves a technical problem, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow
The additional element (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive user input in a natural language format. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer/computing components and insignificant extra-solution activities. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 as drafted is recited to a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, that covers steps which could be reasonably performed in the mind, with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer/computing components. The claim recites the limitation "wherein the one or more workflows are identified to: determine the one or more pattern vectors in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space based on the plurality of parameters of the intent, wherein the multi-dimensional pattern vector space comprises a plurality of pattern axes each corresponding to a respective pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns; and determine the one or more workflows for the user input based on the one or more pattern vectors and a respective criteria for the respective pre-determined workflow pattern, wherein the respective criteria is associated with the respective defining parameters." which is a process that can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations fall under the "Mental Processes" group of abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite "wherein the one or more workflows are generated by using one or more machine learning models that are trained” which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite an additional element that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional element "wherein the one or more workflows are generated by using one or more machine learning models that are trained” which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 as drafted is directed to a process, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, that covers steps which could be reasonably performed in the mind, with the aid of
pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer/computing components. The claim
recites the limitation "wherein one of the one or more pattern vectors comprise at least two
pre-determined workflow patterns." which describes the data in the mental process. Thus, the
limitations fall under the "Mental Processes" group of abstract ideas.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 as drafted is directed to a process, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, that covers steps which could be reasonably performed in the mind, with the aid of
pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer/computing components. The claim
recites the limitation "modifying a respective portion of the workflow according to each of the
one or more edit intents." which is a process that can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations fall under the "Mental Processes" group of abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims further
recite "receiving a natural-language request for editing a workflow of the one or more
workflows; in response to the natural-language request, extracting one or more edit intents of
the natural-language request;" which is directed to the insignificant extra solution activity of
mere data transmission (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 upon practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the process of "receiving a natural-language
request for editing a workflow of the one or more workflows; in response to the natural-
language request, extracting one or more edit intents of the natural-language request;" which
has been determined to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of receiving or
transmitting data over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the additional
elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims
are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 as drafted is directed to a process, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, that covers steps which could be reasonably performed in the mind, with the aid of
pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer/computing components. The claim
recites the limitation "indicating the modified respective portion of the workflow and
corresponding edit intent of the one or more edit intents using a respective visual indicator." describes the data in the mental process. Thus, the limitations fall under the "Mental Processes"
group of abstract ideas.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 as drafted is directed to a process, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, that covers steps which could be reasonably performed in the mind, with the aid of
pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer/computing components. The claim
recites the limitation "indicating the modified respective portion of the workflow and
corresponding edit intent of the one or more edit intents using a respective visual indicator"
which describes the data in the mental process Thus, the limitations fall under the "Mental
Processes" group of abstract ideas.
Claims 7 and 14 recites the additional elements "receiving, via the user interface, a
selection for a workflow of the one or more workflows; and in response to receiving the
selection, outputting the selected workflow." which is directed to the insignificant extra solution
activity of mere data transmission/data output (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 upon practicing the abstract idea.
The insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea. The claims recite the additional elements "receiving, via the user interface, a
selection for a workflow of the one or more workflows; and in response to receiving the
selection, outputting the selected workflow receiving, via the user interface, a selection for a
workflow of the one or more workflows; and in response to receiving the selection, outputting the selected workflow." which has been determined to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network/data output (See MPEP
2106.05(d)(II)). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor
amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200192975 A1 hereinafter "Maes" in view of US 20250272062 A1 hereinafter “Kehres”.
With regards to claim 1, Maes teaches
A method comprising: receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in
a natural-language format and conveys one or more criteria for a custom workflow; (Maes
[0026-29], "Moreover, the same principles discussed above may be applied here to produce an
orchestration workflow that is associated with a specific orchestration language and addresses
the problems or use cases that are represented by the input data. [conveys one or more criteria
for a custom workflow] The input data 110, in general, may take on numerous forms,
depending on the particular implementation. As examples, the input data 110 may represent a
cloud orchestration workflow associated with a different cloud orchestration language than the
output cloud orchestration workflow 150, a script, or an expression of a user intent for the task(s)
to be performed in the cloud computing environment and not associated with a particular
workflow language [receiving a user input, wherein the user input is provided in a natural-
language format].")
determining an intent associated with the user input based on the one or more
criteria; (Maes [0054], "Other implementations are contemplated, which are within the scope of
the appended claims. For example, in accordance with further example implementations, natural
language processing may be employed to translate workflows into corresponding intents or intent
descriptions. In this manner, analogous to the techniques and systems that are described herein,
in accordance with further example implementations, a natural language processing model may
be trained and used to convert workflows into intent description")
and generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows. (Maes
[0037], "In accordance with example implementations, the input data 110 may be provided to the natural language processing engine 122 through one of many different input mechanisms, such
as a data file or input entered via a graphical user interface (GUI) 123. Moreover, the natural
language processing engine 122 may provide its output describing the output cloud orchestration
workflow 150, candidate output cloud orchestration workflows 150, and SO forth, as an output
file, as a graphical output provided via the GUI 123, and so forth.")
Maes teaches an intent associated with the user input does not teach: wherein the intent comprises a plurality of parameters;
mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space, wherein each pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns comprises respective defining parameters corresponding to respective predefined intents;
automatically generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in response to the user input based on the mapping, wherein the one or more pattern vectors comprise a set of defining parameters that match the plurality of parameters of the intent;
However, in an analogous art Kehres teaches wherein the intent comprises a plurality of parameters; (Kehres [0046], “Referring back to FIG. 2, the input received (at step 202) may be analyzed such that the analytics server identifies the intent of the input received from the user. As used herein, the intent of the user may refer to one or more attributes of the workflow as intended to be created by the user. [the intent comprises a plurality of parameters]”)
mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space, (Kehres [0063], “ The second LLM may perform various actions, as depicted with respect to steps 204a-c. For instance, in step 204a, the second LLM may identify, by searching a hierarchical data structure using a vector embedding associated with the intent, an object corresponding to the intent … The data may be organized in a hierarchical or tree-like manner, such that different objects are represented by nodes/objects and dependent nodes/sub-objects. Therefore, the hierarchical data structure (sometimes referred to as the “environment” or the “environment data”) may refer to properties of an entity (e.g., orders or shops). The entities like orders, shops, and/or customers may be considered as nodes in a graph, with their properties acting as edges linking to other nodes.”) wherein each pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns comprises respective defining parameters corresponding to respective predefined intents; (Kehres [0065], “In some embodiments, the analytics server may first generate an embedding associated with the intent received and then perform a semantic search of the hierarchical data structure to identify the node/object that corresponds to the intent of the user. Each object/node may include a description. In some embodiments, the semantic search may determine whether the embedding (vector) associated with the intent matches (at least partially) with the description of the object/node. In some embodiments, the analytics server and/or the second LLM may iteratively traverse the hierarchy until a leaf node or object is identified.”) [Examiner’s Note: A vector by definition can have multiple dimensions. A vector that is associated with the intent indicates a plurality of sub-objects/nodes/objects that represent/map to the plurality of parameters of a workflow pattern]
automatically generating one or more workflows (Kehres [0073], “Using the method 200, the analytics server may generate workflows with blocks having diverse functionalities, such as conditions and/or multiple dependencies. Specifically, the first LLM may identify the existence of a condition, and the second LLM may determine which path can provide an optimized approach to retrieve data such that the condition can be evaluated. The method 200 is also scalable, such that multiple dependent conditional steps can be coded in the workflow. When multiple dependencies are identified, the method 200 can be iteratively performed until all blocks of the workflow have been created.”) based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space (Kehres [0130], “In some embodiments, the analytics server may generate embeddings for different templates and store them as vectors/embeddings within the template DB 420. However, the analytics server may not identify an existing template. As a result, the first LLM displays the message 504, informing the user that a template cannot be found.”) in response to the user input based on the mapping, wherein the one or more pattern vectors comprise a set of defining parameters that match the plurality of parameters of the intent; (Kehres [0155], “The generated embeddings 660 are input into the encoder 652. The encoder 652 serves to encode the embeddings 660 into feature vectors 662 that represent the latent features of the embeddings 660. The encoder 652 may encode positional information (e.g., information about the sequence of the input) in the feature vectors 662. The feature vectors 662 may have very high dimensionality (e.g., on the order of thousands or tens of thousands), with each element in a feature vector 662 corresponding to a respective feature. The numerical weight of each element in a feature vector 662 represents the importance of the corresponding feature. The space of all possible feature vectors 662 that can be generated by the encoder 652 may be referred to as the latent space or feature space.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kehres into the teachings of Maes. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to translate natural language descriptions into an intent based workflow interface, as in Maes, wherein a workflow is generated from an intent that is represented and mapped to a vector, as in Kehres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of an AI workflow assistant that generates the workflow by identifying objects in candidate paths to retrieve data therein (Kehres [0016]).
With regards to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Maes further teaches receiving, via the user interface, a selection for a workflow of the one or more workflows; and
in response to receiving the selection, outputting the selected workflow. (Maes
[0040], "As a more specific example, referring to FIG. 1B in conjunction with FIG. 1A, in
accordance with some implementations, the machine translation engine 120 may provide a
graphical output 180 (output provided via the GUI 123, for example), which depicts a list of
candidate output cloud orchestration workflows 150 (N candidate output cloud orchestration
workflows 150-1, 150-N, being depicted in FIG. 1B, as examples) for selection by the user.
In this manner, the user, through interaction with the GUI 123, such as by interaction through
mouse clicks or movements, as examples, may select the particular candidate output cloud
orchestration workflow 150. In accordance with example implementations, the user may open
the selected candidate cloud orchestration workflow 150 in an editing interface, or editor 126
(see FIG. 1A), for purposes of further refining, or editing, the workflow 150 to produce a final
cloud orchestration workflow. In accordance with example implementations, the GUI 123 and
the editor 126 may be provided through the execution of machine executable instructions by one
or multiple processors 124 of the physical machine 120.")
Claims 8 and 14 are directed to a system corresponding to the method disclosed in claims
1 and 7 respectively. Thus, claims 8 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1
and 7.
Claim 15 is directed to a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media
corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the
same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes in view of Kehres as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively above, in view of US 20240338528 hereinafter "Wolfe" and further in view of US 11973725 B2 hereinafter "Le"
With regards to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Maes and Kehres does not teach: wherein the one or more workflows are generated by using one or more machine learning models that are trained to: determine the one or more pattern vectors in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space based on the plurality of parameters of the intent […]
determine the one or more workflows for the user input based on the pattern vectors and a respective criteria for the respective pre-determined workflow pattern, wherein the respective criteria is associated with the respective one or more defining parameters.
However, in an analogous art Wolfe teaches wherein the one or more workflows are generated by using one or more machine learning models that are trained to: determine the one or more pattern vectors in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space based on the plurality of parameters of the intent […] (Wolfe [0038], "In one scenario, with respect to a simple example of training feedforward neural network, natural language inputs may be converted into a numerical format that can be used as input to the neural network, such as converting words in the inputs into numerical word embeddings or other feature vectors (e.g., using a bag-of-words representation or other techniques). The neural network may include an input layer to represent the feature vectors, several hidden layers to learn the relationships between the inputs and the intents, and an output layer with one node for each intent.")
determine the one or more workflows for the user input based on the pattern vectors and a respective criteria for the respective pre-determined workflow pattern, (Wolfe [0069-70], "The method of any of the preceding embodiments, further comprising: determining an intent in a feature vector space, the intent corresponding to the ordered intent label, wherein generating the labeled dataset comprises associating the natural language input with the intent from the feature vector space. The method of any of the preceding embodiments, wherein the candidate actions of the action set correspond to leaf nodes of an action tree, wherein the action tree comprises non-leaf nodes corresponding to questions directed to a labeler, the method further comprising: in response to presenting a first natural language input to a plurality of labelers, obtaining first user selections indicating a first action of the action tree as an action related to the first natural language input and second user selections indicating a second action of the action tree as an action related to the first natural language input;") wherein the respective criteria is associated with the respective one or more defining parameters. (Wolfe [0019], "In one use case, with respect to FIG. 2A, action tree 200 may include nodes 202 and branches 204, where each node 202 corresponds to a portion of the content presentation (e.g., a different portion of a workflow for the content presentation), and each branch 204 corresponds to a transition to a different next portion of the content presentation (e.g., a different uniform resource locator (URL) or other link to a different next portion of the workflow). In some use cases, each node 202 may correspond to a question and context information related to the question (e.g., a guide for answering "Yes" to the question or answering No to the question). In a further use case, one or more of the nodes 204 may additionally or alternatively correspond to one or more candidate actions that are selectable by the labeler user (e.g., to indicate that a candidate action should be part of an intent label for a natural language input). The candidate actions for such nodes 204 may, for example, be a small subset of the available actions in the action set (e.g., a single action to be confirmed or otherwise selected by the user for an intent label, two to six actions from which the user may selected from for the intent label, etc.).") [Examiner's Note: The workflow is the series of actions that is based off of the intent of the first natural language input that defines the criteria through an answer of the questions]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Wolfe into the teachings of Maes in view of Kehres. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to translate natural language descriptions into an intent based workflow interface, as in Maes, wherein a workflow is generated from an intent that is represented and mapped to a vector, as in Kehres, generating the workflow is a result of an association between one or more workflows and a vector that further corresponds to user intent, as in Wolfe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of generating an action tree to develop a workflow that matches the intent label for a natural language input (Wolfe [0051]).
The combination of Maes, Kehres, and Wolfe does not teach: wherein the multi-dimensional pattern vector space comprises a plurality of pattern axes each corresponding to a respective pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns;
However, in an analogous art Le teaches wherein the multi-dimensional pattern vector space comprises a plurality of pattern axes each corresponding to a respective pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns; (Le Column 6 Lines 23-42, "For example, the first machine learning model may quantitatively express each specific intent as a plurality of values (e.g., a vector array). The system may then determine the distance (e.g., the similarities) between two specific intents based on a correlation distance. Specific intent with independence may be put into different intent clusters, whereas specific intents without independence may be put into the same intent cluster.") [Examiner's Note: A cluster defines a group of actions that share a common classification to a user intention]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Le into the teachings of Maes in view of Kehres and further in view of Wolfe. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to translate natural language descriptions into an intent based workflow interface, as in Maes, wherein a workflow is generated from an intent that is represented and mapped to a vector, as in Kehres, generating the workflow is a result of an association between one or more workflows and a vector that further corresponds to user intent, as in Wolfe, with multiple values representing an intent and clusters to define workflow criteria, as in Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of using feature map dimensions for dynamic responses that first aggregates information about the user to determine their intent (Le Column 11 Lines 1-30).
With regards to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
The combination of Maes, Kehres and Wolfe does not teach: wherein the one of the one or more pattern vectors comprise at least two pre-determined workflow patterns.
However, in an analogous art Le teaches wherein the one of the one or more pattern vectors comprise at least two pre-determined workflow patterns. (Le Column 6 Lines 23-59, "Specific intent with independence may be put into different intent clusters, whereas specific intents without independence may be put into the same intent cluster System 100 may then apply business rules or other factors (e.g., device screen size), to refine the plurality of intent clusters. For example, based on the size of the device, the system may generate intent clusters having a predetermined number (or maximum or minimum number) of specific intents.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Le into the teachings of Maes in view of Kehres and further in view of Wolfe. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to translate natural language descriptions into an intent based workflow interface, as in Maes, wherein a workflow is generated from an intent that is represented and mapped to a vector, as in Kehres, generating the workflow is a result of an association between one or more workflows and a vector that further corresponds to user intent, as in Wolfe, with multiple values representing an intent and clusters to define workflow criteria, as in Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of using feature map dimensions for dynamic responses that first aggregates information about the user to determine their intent (Le Column 11 Lines 1-30).
Claims 9 and 10 are directed to a system corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 2 and 3 respectively. Thus, claims 9 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 2 and 3.
Claims 16 and 17 are directed to a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claims 2 and 3. Thus, claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 2 and 3.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes in view of Kehres as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively above, and further in view of US 12299441 B2 hereinafter "Panikkar".
With regards to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Maes further teaches receiving a natural-language request (Maes [0055], "To summarize the above-described translation-based generation of an automation workflow, referring to FIG. 4, in accordance with example implementations, a technique 400 includes receiving (block 404), by a computer, data representing a task to be automated in association with a computing environment. Pursuant to block 408, the technique 400 includes applying, by the computer, natural language processing to the data to generate a sequence of statements describing operations to be executed to perform the task.") for editing a workflow of the one or more workflows; (Maes [0042], " In this manner, by analyzing metrics associated with the generated cloud orchestration workflows 150, edits made to the workflows 150 and selected candidate workflow options, in accordance with some implementations, the machine learning engine 122 may adapt to produce future cloud orchestration workflows 150 having less complexities, improved execution times, as well as other optimized criteria. Moreover, in accordance with example implementations, the training of the machine language model 125 may result in the machine learning engine 122 learning how to combine existing workflows, e.g., whether to sequentially combine workflows, how to select workflows for combination, how to combine workflows in parallel, how to call other workflows, how to escape from workflows, and so forth. Moreover, the training of the machine language model 125 may allow the natural language processing engine 122 to adapt to optimally merge or close into a new workflow (e.g., such as insertion of one or multiple workflow parts within another workflow, and so forth).")
in response to the natural-language request, extracting one or more edit intents of the natural-language request; (Maes [0060], "in accordance with example implementations, the natural language processing engine 122 may receive data (block 704), which represents a particular automation workflow and apply (block 708) natural language processing to the data to generate a corresponding determined intent. The determined intent, in turn, allows the input automation workflow to be "understood" and described in terms of what the workflow may do.")
The combination of Maes and Kehres does not teach: modifying a respective portion of the workflow according to each of the one or more edit intents.
However, in an analogous art Panikkar teaches modifying a respective portion of the workflow according to each of the one or more edit intents. (Panikkar Columns 5-6 Lines 64-67 and 1-10, "The automated actions can include, for example, providing information (e.g., to one or more of the user devices 102) related to the interlocking applications. The information, in some embodiments, can include descriptions explaining the relationships between the interlocking applications and/or information identifying one or more developers or developer groups associated with each of the interlocking applications. The automated actions can alternatively or additionally include automatically creating and/or assigning a ticket in an issue tracking system to one or more users associated with the impacted applications. For example, the
ticket can flag one or more software tests or portions of software code that may need to be updated and/or tested.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Panikkar into the teachings of Maes in view of Kehres. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to translate natural language descriptions into an intent based workflow interface, as in Maes, wherein a workflow is generated from an intent that is represented and mapped to a vector, as in Kehres, and modifying a respective section of the selected workflow in response to the user’s intent, as in Panikkar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of developing a high-level description to define new software related to planning, scheduling, allocating resources, developing, testing, and maintaining the software broken down by feature requests (Panikkar Column Lines 32-49).
With regards to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
The combination of Maes and Kehres does not teach: indicating the modified respective portion of the workflow and corresponding edit intent of the one or more edit intents using a respective visual indicator.
However, in an analogous art Panikkar teaches indicating the modified respective portion of the workflow and corresponding edit intent of the one or more edit intents using a respective visual indicator. (Panikkar Column 9 Lines 27-58, "The software summary capturing tool 202, in at least some embodiments, can enable a user to input a given software summary. The user can then select an option (e.g., a button in a user interface) to show possible interlocking applications corresponding to the software summary. In at least one embodiment, contact information can be added to the application knowledge base, which would enable the software summary capturing tool 202 to automatically provide contact information related to the interlocking applications, so that the user can quickly gather additional information, if needed The feedback may alternatively or additionally include updates and/or changes to at least some of the information in the knowledge bases (e.g., keyword application knowledge base 300 and/or intent interlock knowledge base 400). For example, if an application is identified as a test-only interlocking application, and a user provides feedback indicating that the application is an active interlocking application, then this can trigger the intent resolution module 212 to update the identified interlocking applications 206 to reflect any changes.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Panikkar into the teachings of Maes in view of Kehres. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to translate natural language descriptions into an intent based workflow interface, as in Maes, wherein a workflow is generated from an intent that is represented and mapped to a vector, as in Kehres, and modifying a respective section of the selected workflow in response to the user’s intent, as in Panikkar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of developing a high-level description to define new software related to planning, scheduling, allocating resources, developing, testing, and maintaining the software broken down by feature requests (Panikkar Column Lines 32-49).
Claims 11-12 are directed to a system corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 4-5 respectively. Thus, claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 4-5.
Claims 18-19 are directed to a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claims 4-5 respectively. Thus, claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 4-5.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes in view of Kehres in view of Panikkar as applied to claims 5, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of US 20250086895 A1 hereinafter "Chan".
With regards to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
The combination of Maes, Kehres, and Panikkar does not teach: wherein the respective visual indicator comprises highlighting the modified respective portion and the corresponding edit intent.
However, in an analogous art Chan teaches wherein the respective visual indicator comprises highlighting the modified respective portion and the corresponding edit intent. (Chan [0025] "That is, in some cases, a user profile may select, highlight, copy, etc. content within a virtual space and include such content in the request. For example, a canvas may include a section that includes content designed to describe the purpose of the virtual space (or channel) with which the canvas is associated. In such cases, a user profile may determine that a portion of the content is complex and/or difficult to understand. As such, the user profile may send a request to the communication platform to modify the portion of the content. The user profile may highlight the portion of the content and select a modifying operation the user profile would like to apply to the highlighted portion. In this case, the user profile may select the modifying operation of simplifying the text. Accordingly, the request, as received by the communication platform, may include the highlighted content and/or the modifying operation.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chan into the teachings of Maes in view of Kehres and further in view of Panikkar. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to translate natural language descriptions into an intent based workflow interface, as in Maes, wherein a workflow is generated from an intent that is represented and mapped to a vector, as in Kehres, and modifying a respective section of the selected workflow in response to the user’s intent, as in Panikkar, and highlighting the respective edit portion corresponding to the user intent, as in Chan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of improving user experience through organizing data in a manner that is easy to consume, process, or distribute upon modifying content for output in response to a user request (Chan [0017]).
Claim 13 is directed to a system corresponding to the method disclosed in claim 6 respectively. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 6.
Claim 20 is directed to a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 6 respectively. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant Argues:
the recitations of amended independent claim 1 (e.g., as recited in independent claim 1, “mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space, wherein each pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns comprises respective defining parameters corresponding to respective predefined intents; automatically generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in response to the user input based on the mapping, wherein the one or more pattern vectors comprise a set of defining parameters that match the plurality of parameters of the intent; and generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows,”) cannot be reasonably construed as merely directed to mental processes.
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “As with the examples set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind is not equipped to perform these functions. Further, the USPTO issued guidance in a memorandum dated August 4, 2025 (the “Kim memo”), that emphasizes that “the mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the process of mapping the plurality of parameters to a workflow pattern in a vector space and generating a workflow can be practically performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim covers the performance of a limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper thereby falling under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Examiner further asserts that “generating a user interface” does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception.
In the Remarks, Applicant Argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements identified by the Examiner (e.g., one or more processors, memory, non-transitory storage medium) perform specific technical operations to facilitate “determining an intent associated with the user input based on the one or more criteria, wherein the intent comprises a plurality of parameters; mapping the plurality of parameters to a set of pre-determined workflow patterns in a multi-dimensional pattern vector space, wherein each pre-determined workflow pattern of the set of pre-determined workflow patterns comprises respective defining parameters corresponding to respective predefined intents; automatically generating one or more workflows based on one or more pattern vectors generated from the set of pre-determined workflow patterns in the multi-dimensional pattern vector space in response to the user input based on the mapping, wherein the one or more pattern vectors comprise a set of defining parameters that match the plurality of parameters of the intent; and generating a user interface that indicates the one or more workflows,” as recited in amended independent claim 1, 8, and 15. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite with specificity how the alleged abstract idea is practically applied to automatically generate user customized workflows based on user input without starting from scratch by utilizing a set of pre-determined workflow patterns, thus incorporating the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application such that the claims are not merely “a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception.” For example, Specification explains in paragraph [0008] that “[b]ased on the user intents and the purposes of the pre-determined workflow patterns, the ML models may map one or more of the pre-determined workflow patterns to the user intents to generate a customized workflow…The user may select and/or tailor functionalities of the customized workflow, such as via a dynamic natural language input and feedback loop (e.g., via the virtual agent). Accordingly, the user may generate customized workflows for business needs without starting from scratch.” (Emphases added.)
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “the additional elements identified by the Examiner (e.g., one or more processors, memory, non-transitory storage medium) perform specific technical operations” Examiner asserts that the additional elements remain as generic computer/computing components to apply the abstract idea. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the process of mapping the plurality of parameters to a workflow pattern in a vector space and generating a workflow can be practically performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim covers the performance of a limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper thereby falling under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Applicant is reminded that an abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. With respect to the applicant’s argument “The user may select and/or tailor functionalities of the customized workflow, such as via a dynamic natural language input and feedback loop (e.g., via the virtual agent). Accordingly, the user may generate customized workflows for business needs without starting from scratch.” Examiner asserts that while limitations are interpreted in the light of the specification, the specification must not be read into the claims. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations is deemed to be proper.
In the Remarks, Applicant Argues:
Under Step 2B of the test outlined in the M.P.E.P., if additional elements recited by the claims amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception, then the claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05. Additional claim elements may amount to “significantly more,” for example, by providing an inventive concept by adding a particular limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. See id. Even if the Examiner determines that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea and do not incorporate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an inventive concept as described in detail below. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an inventive concept under Step 2B and are directed to patentable subject matter.
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument “independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an inventive concept as described in detail below. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an inventive concept under Step 2B and are directed to patentable subject matter.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. When considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer/computing components and insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TRAVIS VIET TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/T.V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights