DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on February 9, 2026. Claims 1-9 and 12 have been amended, claims 13-20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-28 have been added.
Currently claims 1-12 and 21-28 are pending with claims 9-12 under consideration and claims 1-8 and 21-28 being directed to non-elected invention. Claim 9 is independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on February 9, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-16 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claims 1-8 drawn to a subcombination of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system, classified in G06Q 10/06, G06N 3/08.
Claims 9-12 drawn to a subcombination for generating a software application for performing an enterprise function, classified in G06Q 10/0633, G06N 20/00.
Claims 21-28 drawn to a subcombination for deploying a customized enterprise application, classified in G06Q 10/067, G06N 3/08.
The newly amended claims directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In this case, subcombination I has separate utility such as access a foundational transformer model associated with a knowledge based containing domain-specific enterprise data; and apply deep learning techniques to leverage data in the knowledge base to automatically generate a multi-step workflow for the executable enterprise application. Subcombination II has separate utility such as analyzing the received conversational input using natural language processing (NPL) to a) determine the enterprise function to be performed and b) automatically determine a persona for the software application, training a foundational transformer model with data relevant to the determined enterprise function and learning based on relevant domain-specific enterprise data from a knowledge base associated with said foundational transformer model. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions I and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In this case, subcombination I has separate utility such as access a foundational transformer model associated with a knowledge based containing domain-specific enterprise data; and apply deep learning techniques to leverage data in the knowledge base to automatically generate a multi-step workflow for the executable enterprise application.. Subcombination III has separate utility such as accessing a knowledge base containing domain-specific enterprise data to train a foundational transformer model relevant to the enterprise task, applying deep learning techniques to the trained foundational transformer model to automatically generate a multi-step workflow for an executable enterprise application, wherein the multi-step workflow defines a structure of processes including accessing specific enterprise database and performing calculations; and automatically troubleshooting the multi-step workflow by executing an automated feedback loop to identify implementation errors and reordering workflow sequence steps to bypass steps causing said implementation error. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In this case, subcombination II has separate utility such as analyzing the received conversational input using natural language processing (NPL) to a) determine the enterprise function to be performed and b) automatically determine a persona for the software application, training a foundational transformer model with data relevant to the determined enterprise function and learning based on relevant domain-specific enterprise data from a knowledge base associated with said foundational transformer model. Subcombination III has separate utility such as accessing a knowledge base containing domain-specific enterprise data to train a foundational transformer model relevant to the enterprise task, applying deep learning techniques to the trained foundational transformer model to automatically generate a multi-step workflow for an executable enterprise application, wherein the multi-step workflow defines a structure of processes including accessing specific enterprise database and performing calculations; and automatically troubleshooting the multi-step workflow by executing an automated feedback loop to identify implementation errors and reordering workflow sequence steps to bypass steps causing said implementation error. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant(s) are reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 9 and 12 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 9-12 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 9, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended claims are not abstract idea and provide significantly more at least for the following reasons: (1) identify that upon detection of an implementation error, the system determine[s] a revised workflow path to bypass steps causing the implementations error” without user intervention. (2) determining an enterprise function through natural language processing (NLP) analysis of conversational inputs. (3) The persona template described in the claims is a functional, configurable software construct, not a mere data visualization. (4) Independent claims 1, 9 and 21 and its dependents are directed to a statutory machine comprising “communications circuitry” and “control circuity.” This architecture is not merely a peripheral environment for an abstract idea; rather, the hardware is functional integrated with the software logic to execute tasks that a generic computer cannot perform.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
(1) identify/detecting an implementation error and determining a revised workflow path are steps can be performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
(2) while determining an enterprise function and analysis of conversational input are also can be performed by a human in his/her mind, making determination and analyzing things are fundamental building block of human ingenuity. As such it is an abstract idea. Performing the abstract idea through the NLP, even if the NLP is running by the one or more processor, it is merely linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
(3) displaying a functional and configurable persona template is no more than generic computer component for performing generic computer functions, and allows a user to inject enterprise-specific configuration data directly into the AI-generated logic does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claim recites the steps that could be accomplished by human intelligence or mental processes alone. The Federal Circuit has held that if a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and it not patent eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
(4) In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, beyond the abstract idea, the claim (9) recites the additional element of “via communications circuitry” for receiving a conversational input from a user related to the software application. The communications circuity is recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as generic computer component to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating and transmitting data over a network. This is not an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.”). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant argues that Charisius in view of Cella, further in view of Martin do not teach, suggest, or describe technical integration of an interactive conversational AI agent with the automatic generation of an executable enterprise application that includes a self-healing, troubleshootable multi-step workflow; automatically testing the generated multi-step workflow…, and generating a functional software construct, the persona template, that is specifically configured to allow a user to inject enterprise-specific configuration data into an AI generated workflow.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully asserts that Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended claims, and therefore, the newly amended claims will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the generated workflow” is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 9-12 are directed to methods for generating software application for performing an enterprise function, which fall within the statutory category of a process.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking claim 9 as representative, the claim recites limitations of “receiving a conversational input from a user, analyzing the received conversational input using natural language processing to: determine the enterprise function to be performed and determine a person for the software application, training a foundational transformer model with data relevant to the determined enterprise function and learning based on relevant domain-specific enterprise data from a knowledge base, determining steps of a multi-step workflow to perform the enterprise function based on the learning from the relevant domain-specific enterprise data, generating the software application having the multi-step incorporating the determined steps and generating a configurable persona template customized for the determined persona”, dependent claims 10-12 further narrowing the limitations of claim 9 including providing user interface tools, deploying the software application, generating a user interface on an electronic device of the user, displaying the generated workflow on one portion of the user interface, analyzing the received conversational input related to generating a software application”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed methods that allow user to manage enterprise software application generation, which is a form of fundamental economic practical and commercial interactions. Further, the claims recite limitations of receiving a conversational input, analyzing the received conversational input, determining steps of a multi-step workflow, generating configurable persona template, and displaying the generated workflow are similar to the concept as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, the claims fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “via communications circuitry” and “a user interface” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 9 recites the additional elements of “communications circuitry”, “a user interface” and “an electronic device” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality. For example, the specification describes that “control circuitry 228 may include communication circuitry suitable for communicating with an application server or other network server. Communication circuitry may include a cable modem, an Ethernet card, or a wireless modem for communication with other equipment, or any other suitable communication circuitry” (see ¶ 47). These additional elements are no more than generic computer components and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”). Further, using a deep learning technique (or an artificial intelligence) is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement that abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to learning per se, such an argument overlooks the entire education system. Reciting machine learning is placing such learning in a computer context, offering no technological implementation details beyond the conceptual idea to use a machine for learning. However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 9 recites the additional elements of “communications circuitry”, “a user interface” and “an electronic device” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality. For example, the specification describes that “control circuitry 228 may include communication circuitry suitable for communicating with an application server or other network server. Communication circuitry may include a cable modem, an Ethernet card, or a wireless modem for communication with other equipment, or any other suitable communication circuitry” (see ¶ 47). These additional elements are no more than generic computer components and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The additional elements, at best, may performing the steps of : receiving conversational input form a user, and displaying workflow on one portion of the user interface of the user’s electronic device. However, using generic computer components for receiving, displaying and transmitting information over a network have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 9-12 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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 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 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.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charisius et al., (US 2002/0078432, hereinafter: Charisius), and in view of Cella et al., (WO 2024155584, hereinafter: Cella), and further in view of Martin, (WO 2025/0174383).
Regarding claim 9, Charisius discloses a method for generating a software application for performing an enterprise function, the method comprising:
receiving, via communications circuitry, a conversational input from a user related to the software application (see Abstract; Fig. 53, # 5306; ¶ 11-14, ¶ 90, ¶ 103, ¶ 107-108, ¶ 138, ¶ 141, ¶ 161);
analyzing the received conversational input using natural language processing (NLP) to a) determine the enterprise function to be performed (see ¶ 108, ¶ 197) and b) automatically determine a persona for the software application;
automatically and without user intervention generating the software application having the multi-step incorporating the determined steps (see ¶ 35, ¶ 91, ¶ 105, ¶ 112, ¶ 137-141).
Charisius discloses developing multiple workflows by allowing the enterprise affiliate to store role profiles related to the selected workflow activity (see ¶ 148), and the Client Interface may use any known data input technique (see ¶ 179).
Charisius does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella in analogous art for generating artificial intelligence discloses
training a foundational transformer model with data relevant to the determined enterprise function and learning based on relevant domain-specific enterprise data from a knowledge base associated with said foundational transformer model (see ¶ 350, ¶ 1805, ¶ 1776, ¶ 1818, ¶ 1953, ¶ 3228, ¶ 3235-3236);
determining steps of a multi-step workflow to perform the enterprise function based on the learning from the relevant domain-specific enterprise data (see ¶ 270, ¶ 285, ¶ 336, ¶ 666, ¶ 1032, ¶ 1046, ¶ 1065-1066, ¶ 1808, ¶ 2420).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Charisius to include teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Cella discloses generating a plurality of pre-defined preferences templates for different types of enterprises (see ¶ 2407).
Charisius and Cella do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Martin discloses
b) automatically determine a persona for the software application (see ¶ 95, ¶ 230, ¶ 216-217);
automatically generating a configurable persona template customized for the determined persona, wherein the configurable persona template is configured to enable the user to configure the generated software application with enterprise-specific data (see ¶ 79, ¶ 95, ¶ 115-116, ¶ 230, ¶ 233-234, ¶ 239, ¶ 270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Charisius and in view of Cella to include teaching of Martin in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more flexibility and efficiency of customizing layout, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Charisius discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
providing user interface tools for configuring the generated software application (see ¶ 94, ¶ 99, ¶ 117, ¶ 147, ¶ 153); and
deploying the software application after its configuration (see ¶ 88, ¶ 137, ¶ 182).
Regarding claim 11, Charisius discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
generating a user interface on an electronic device of the user (see ¶ 51, ¶ 123, ¶ 127); and
displaying the generated workflow on one portion of the user interface and the conversational input in a separate portion of the user interface (see ¶ 123, ¶ 127, ¶ 130).
Regarding claim 12, Charisius discloses the method of claim 10 further comprising:
analyzing the received conversational input related to generating a software application (see ¶ 108, ¶ 197);
determining that a specific piece of information is needed to perform the enterprise function provided in the received conversational input (see ¶ 108, ¶ 172, ¶ 182).
Charisius does not explicitly disclose a deep learning technique; however, Cella discloses
automatically, using an artificial intelligence (Al) bot, responding to the received conversational input, wherein the response queries the user for the specific piece of information is needed to perform the enterprise function (see ¶ 1593, ¶ 1816-1819, ¶ 1823, ¶ 2068, ¶ 3019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Charisius to include teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pattabhiraman et al., (CN 108351883 A) discloses a system for facilitating end user creating and using a template derived from analysis report and displaying the combined page data derived from a database of user interface that provides one or more user to select associated option.
Qureshi et al., (CN 104798355 A) discloses system for monitoring enterprise system, collecting meta-application data, and reporting by data of enterprise agent running on a mobile device.
Ghoche et al., (US 2024/0386213) discloses a method for autonomous customer support chatbot agent with natural language workflow policies.
Black et al., (US 2024/0372856) discloses a method for proactive support and dynamic optimization utilizing AI applications that deployed in a variety of fields.
Pearl et al., (US 2018/0337966) discloses a system for managing workflows in a cloud-based service platform comprises workflow metadata that describes a workflow as a set of workflow tasks to be carried out in a progression.
Jindal et al., (US 2024/0242154) discloses a method may include receiving question as a natural language string, determining one or more fragments based on the natural language string, identifying one or more query operators based on the one or more fragment, and constructing a structured query tree based on the query operators.
Hollingsworth, “Workflow Management Coalition The workflow reference model”, The Workflow Management Coalition Specification, Jan 19, 1995.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624