DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 10/8/2025 submission filed in Application 18/625,731.
Claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/8/2025 with respect to claim(s) the prior art have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by amendment..
Applicant's remaining arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “the recitation of "running, by the processor set, a workflow including at least one task associated with the work received via the chat bot, the workflow including a sequence of automated tasks programmed to be processed by the processor set" does not recite "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)." Such recitation also is not practically performed in the mind. Rather, the recited feature includes "a processor set" running or executing "automated tasks programmed to be processed by the processor set" inter-operating with a "chat bot." The feature of "interacting with the user, by the processor set, via the chat bot on the chat session, to present the filtered data" also does not fall within the enumerated categories of Step 2A, Prong 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of running a workflow including at least one task associated with the work; determining a minimal user role needed for the at least one task; filtering based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions. Further, the steps directed to determining a minimal user role needed for the at least one task; filtering based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow are mental processes. There is nothing is nothing the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
The Applicant further argues “The recited features of claim 1 further integrate a practical application of improving computerized workflow processing with question and answering (QA) system, that achieves intelligent workflow orchestration with QA system. The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The specification in paragraphs [0035]-[0039] describes integrating workflow and QA systems with chat bot technology to achieve an intelligent workflow orchestration with QA system. Claim 1 as a whole also reflects such improvement.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recited how the chatbot functions to initiate the workflow. As such the broadly recited chatbot does not amount to a technical improvement. Viewing the generic data presentation in combination with the generic computer and general link to a chatbot environment does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide and inventive concept.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-7 are directed toward a method for filtering, by the processor set, based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow. Claims 8-14 are directed toward a computer program product for filtering, by the processor set, based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow. Claims 15-20 are directed toward a method for filtering, by the processor set, based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of running a workflow including at least one task associated with the work; determining a minimal user role needed for the at least one task; filtering based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A method comprising:
running a workflow including at least one task associated with the work;
determining a minimal user role needed for the at least one task;
the minimal user role determined using historical data associated with the automated sequence of tasks invoked by a plurality of different users, and interactive information associated with each of the automated tasks in the sequence for each user of the different users, and by analyzing the historical data and the interactive information to detect the minimal user rule needed for the at least one task;
filtering based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow; and
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case the steps of running a workflow including at least one task associated with the work; determining a minimal user role needed for the at least one task; filtering based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The instant claims recite mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the steps directed to determining a minimal user role needed for the at least one task; filtering based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow are mental processes. There is nothing is nothing the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
launching, by a processor set, a chat bot to initiate a chat session with a user, responsive to receiving a request for work received via the chat bot, the workflow including a sequence of automated tasks programmed to be processed by the processor set, the at least one task being part of the sequence of the automated tasks;;
a processor set to perform the recited abstract idea
presenting, by the processor set, via the chat bot on the chat session, the filtered data.
However, the processor set is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains data output can be considered post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the claims do not provide any particular way that the data is presented. As such, the broadly recited acquire of position information amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity.
Further, the launching of a chat bot to initiate a chat session with a user amounts to a genera link to a particular technological environment. For example, the abstract idea is linked to the technological environment of a chatbot interface. The chatbot interface is recited broadly and amount to a generic chatbot environment.
Viewing the generic data presentation in combination with the generic computer and general link to a chatbot environment does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processing circuitry in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, generally liking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (the chatbot environment) cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, the Examiner takes official notice that the broadly recited presentation of information is well-known and conventional.
Viewing the generic data presentation in combination with the generic computer and general link to a chatbot environment does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide and inventive concept.
Further Claims 2-7 further limit the mental processes and business practices recited in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, claim 5 discloses the additional elements of interpreting a natural language query. The use of NLP is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited NLP attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. The claims do not state how the natural language processor (NLP) interprets a query. As such, the broadly recited NLP model does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 2-7 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a computer program product, or system for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 8-20 are also rejected.
Claims 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim is directed to a storage media. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshirsagar US 2023/0247019 A1 in view of Pak US 2024/0249148 A1.
As per Claim 1 Kshirsagar teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
launching, by a processor set, a chat bot to initiate a chat session with a user, responsive to receiving a request for work; Kshirsagar para. 18 teaches Messaging system 102 may be a messaging system that allows for a user to provide messages to core server 104 and/or chatbot 106. Messaging system 102 may communicate one or more user requests (e.g., one or more requests for bot assisted actions performed on behalf of the user 112). Messaging system 102 may be any type of messaging system that allows for communication of messages and/or data to core server 104 and/or chatbot 106. Such messages and/or data may include requests for chatbot 106 to perform one or more actions on the behalf of user 112.
received via the chat bot, the workflow including a sequence of automated tasks programmed to be processed by the processor set, the at least one task being part of the sequence of the automated tasks;
Kshirsagar para. 14 teaches Typically, bots perform actions on the behalf of live requesting users as a system user. As a system user, the chatbot may perform actions that do not require identifying information of the requesting user. Bots that are limited to performing actions on behalf of the user as a system user are limited in the amount of tasks that can be performed, as certain tasks may require handling of identifying information, requiring user authentication, and are thus unable to be performed by a system user. Simply allowing the bot to be able to perform tasks that require identifying information of a user exposes sensitive user identifying information to automated bots. The systems and techniques described herein allow for bots to temporarily provide user credentials to be granted certain end user privileges, in order to provide automated services to requesting users, while protecting sensitive user identifying data. Further, par. 18 teaches Messaging system 102 may be a messaging system that allows for a user to provide messages to core server 104 and/or chatbot 106. Messaging system 102 may communicate one or more user requests (e.g., one or more requests for bot assisted actions performed on behalf of the user 112). Messaging system 102 may be any type of messaging system that allows for communication of messages and/or data to core server 104 and/or chatbot 106. Such messages and/or data may include requests for chatbot 106 to perform one or more actions on the behalf of user 112. Such actions may include actions requiring authentication of user 112 to provide permission to perform such actions. Accordingly, such actions may include, for example, selecting health insurance, changing or selecting retirement plans, accessing sensitive documents, changing benefits selections, and/or other such actions where user 112 commands chatbot 106 to perform actions on user 112's behalf. In various embodiments, such commands may be any type of command appropriate for chatbot 106.
running, by the processor set, a workflow including at least one task associated with the work;
determining, by the processor set, a minimal user role needed for the at least one task; Kshirsagar para. 18 teaches Messaging system 102 may be a messaging system that allows for a user to provide messages to core server 104 and/or chatbot 106. Messaging system 102 may communicate one or more user requests (e.g., one or more requests for bot assisted actions performed on behalf of the user 112). Messaging system 102 may be any type of messaging system that allows for communication of messages and/or data to core server 104 and/or chatbot 106. Such messages and/or data may include requests for chatbot 106 to perform one or more actions on the behalf of user 112. Such actions may include actions requiring authentication of user 112 to provide permission to perform such actions. Accordingly, such actions may include, for example, selecting health insurance, changing or selecting retirement plans, accessing sensitive documents, changing benefits selections, and/or other such actions where user 112 commands chatbot 106 to perform actions on user 112's behalf. Further, para. 38 teaches At any point within context specific chatbot technique 200, if a token is not validated, the request may be canceled or chatbot 206 may perform the action as a system user. Otherwise, if the tokens are validated, core system 204 may permit chatbot 206 to perform end user actions and chatbot 206 may accordingly perform the requested action as an end user in 244. Thus, accordingly, chatbot 206 may access and provide sensitive documents, perform actions that are limited to authenticated users, such as booking with sensitive information (e.g., identity or credit card information), perform health insurance selections, perform benefits selections, and/or perform other such actions as an end user.
filtering, by the processor set, based on the minimal user role and a user role of the user, data resulting from running the workflow; and Kshirsagar para. 38 teaches At any point within context specific chatbot technique 200, if a token is not validated, the request may be canceled or chatbot 206 may perform the action as a system user. Otherwise, if the tokens are validated, core system 204 may permit chatbot 206 to perform end user actions and chatbot 206 may accordingly perform the requested action as an end user in 244. Thus, accordingly, chatbot 206 may access and provide sensitive documents, perform actions that are limited to authenticated users, such as booking with sensitive information (e.g., identity or credit card information), perform health insurance selections, perform benefits selections, and/or perform other such actions as an end user.
Interacting with the user, by the processor set, via the chat bot on the chat session, to present the filtered data. Kshirsagar para. 38 teaches At any point within context specific chatbot technique 200, if a token is not validated, the request may be canceled or chatbot 206 may perform the action as a system user. Otherwise, if the tokens are validated, core system 204 may permit chatbot 206 to perform end user actions and chatbot 206 may accordingly perform the requested action as an end user in 244. Thus, accordingly, chatbot 206 may access and provide sensitive documents, perform actions that are limited to authenticated users, such as booking with sensitive information (e.g., identity or credit card information), perform health insurance selections, perform benefits selections, and/or perform other such actions as an end user.
Kshirsagar does not teach the minimal user role determined using historical data associated with the automated sequence of tasks invoked by a plurality of different users, and interactive information associated with each of the automated tasks in the sequence for each user of the different users, and by analyzing the historical data and the interactive information to detect the minimal user rule needed for the at least one task; However, Pak para. 15-17 teach Exemplary methods and systems may use a trained machine learning model to determine that a user will need to access an asset that the user does not currently have access to. The trained machine learning model may use monitored activity of the user to make this determination. The machine learning model may be trained with previous workflows completed by previous users and associated access privileges required for the previous workflows. Once a determination is made by the trained machine learning model, the user may be assigned an access privilege so that the user is thereafter able to access the asset.
Exemplary methods and systems described herein provide a practical application by improving how access control for a user is assigned in a system. In some embodiments, access control for the user may be assigned dynamically using workflow context. Using a trained machine learning model, a current workflow for a user may be identified, and based on this identified workflow, an access privilege for the user may be assigned. Using a trained machine learning model, the monitored activity of a user may be used to determine that the user will need access to an asset that the user does not currently have permission to access, and based on this determination, the user may then be permitted to access the asset. In this way, the exemplary methods and systems may enhance efficiency and improve response times, effectiveness, and overall security of the system.
In exemplary embodiments, the system may learn and determine a current workflow of a user and learn which access privilege is needed for the user based on this current workflow. The system may learn from prior workflows and assign an access privilege to the user based on similarities to prior workflows. To learn from prior workflows, the system may monitor current workflows and access rights requested from users in corresponding workflows to build a correlation between workflows and required access rights. The system may learn what access rights should be granted to particular users based on a particular user's current workflow. The system may track back a certain user's activities to learn one or more workflows and dynamically define new workflows. The system may also grant access only when needed, which can help to improve the overall security of a system. Both Kshirsagar and Pak are directed to permission based workflows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kshirsagar to include the minimal user role determined using historical data associated with the automated sequence of tasks invoked by a plurality of different users, and interactive information associated with each of the automated tasks in the sequence for each user of the different users, and by analyzing the historical data and the interactive information to detect the minimal user rule needed for the at least one task as taught by Pak to improve the overall security of an environment or a facility (see para. 14).
As per Claim 4 Kshirsagar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filtering is performed based on the user role having less privileges than the minimal user role. Kshirsagar para. 38 teaches At any point within context specific chatbot technique 200, if a token is not validated, the request may be canceled or chatbot 206 may perform the action as a system user. Otherwise, if the tokens are validated, core system 204 may permit chatbot 206 to perform end user actions and chatbot 206 may accordingly perform the requested action as an end user in 244. Thus, accordingly, chatbot 206 may access and provide sensitive documents, perform actions that are limited to authenticated users, such as booking with sensitive information (e.g., identity or credit card information), perform health insurance selections, perform benefits selections, and/or perform other such actions as an end user.
Claims 8 and 11 recite similar limitation to those recited in claims 1 and 4 and are rejected for similar reasons. Further, Kshirsagar teaches a computer program product comprising: a set of one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing a processor set to perform the following recited computer operations: (see para. 13)
Claims 15 and 18 recite similar limitation to those recited in claims 1 and 4 and are rejected for similar reasons. Further, Kshirsagar teaches A computer system comprising: a processor set; a set of one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more computer-readable storage media, for causing the processor set to perform the following recited computer operations: (see para. 13)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshirsagar US 2023/0247019 A1 in view of Pak US 2024/0249148 A1 as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Chandrasekaran US 2019/0188269 A1.
As per Claim 2 Kshirsagar does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the workflow includes a task that involves interacting with another user. However, Chandrasekaran para. 26 teaches in accordance with the present disclosure, the bots 106 can combine the abilities of chat bots and process bots. A bot 106 can initiate other bots; for instance, a process bot can initiate another process bot, a process bot can initiate a chat bot, a chat bot can initiate another chat bot, and a chat bot can initiate a process bot. Additionally, the bots 106 discussed herein can contact humans (e.g., experts, agents, officers, engineers, etc.) to address issues. Further, different bots in accordance with embodiments herein can store and maintain a state of a chat conversation and/or a state of a process. As a result, a chat bot, when initiated, may be immediately and automatically informed of the status of a given process, saving the engineer time and frustration. In an example, a field agent installing a system may be involved in a conversation with a chat bot, which may internally invoke a process to test the system and/or contact human assistance to provide a response to the field agent. Both Kshirsagar and Chandrasekaran are directed to chatbot initiated workflows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kshirsagar to include wherein the workflow includes a task that involves interacting with another user as taught by Chandrasekaran to improve workflow efficiency when manual and automated processes are involved (see para. 26).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshirsagar US 2023/0247019 A1 in view of Pak US 2024/0249148 A1 as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Ojha US 20200065509 A1A1.
As per Claim 3 Kshirsagar does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the minimal user role is determined based on historical data associated with the workflow and users who worked on the at least one task defined in the workflow. However,Ojha para. 41 teaches the collaboration attributes are organized and applied to activity-based permissions model 132 to determine a set of access permissions to recommend for the collaborative relationship (operation 3). For example, based at least in part on historical interactions between user u2 and user u5 and/or other content objects, activity-based permissions model 132 might recommend that user u2 have access permissions over file f2 in accordance with a “viewer” access role. As shown, an instance of recommended permissions 118 comprising the recommended access role (e.g., “viewer”) and an associated reason for the recommendation are presented in user interface 108.sub.1 for review by user u5. User u5 can then accept or replace (e.g., with an “editor” access role) the recommended permissions by interacting (e.g., clicking the “Accept” button) within the user interface 108.sub.1 (operation 4). The invitation associated with collaborative relationship 110 and any interactions between user u2 and file f2 will be recorded in new instances of user interaction events 116, which instances may produce updates to activity-based permissions model 132. Both Kshirsagar and Ojha are directed to chatbot initiated workflows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kshirsagar to include wherein the minimal user role is determined based on historical data associated with the workflow and users who worked on the at least one task defined in the workflow.as taught by Ojha to reduce or eliminate all or some of these onerous permissions assignment tasks (see para. 10).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshirsagar US 2023/0247019 A1 in view of Pak US 2024/0249148 A1 as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Liang US 11,159,457 B2.
As per Claim 5 Kshirsagar does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the workflow is triggered to run based on interpreting a natural language query from a user in the chat session, using a natural language processing technique that parses the natural language query into tokens for understanding by the processor set. However, Liang column 13 lines 35-coluymn 14 lines10 teach consistent with various embodiments, the analytics module 205 may respond to user input received from user system 235. Specifically, the analytics module 205 may analyze an unstructured textual document (e.g., a content artifact) to identify one or more terms, associated with the content topic, including one or more intents and/or entities evidenced by the user input. In some embodiments, the analytics module 205 may include a natural language processor 261, data sources 271, a search application 281, and a content artifact analyzer 291. The natural language processor 261 may comprise a computer module that analyzes the received unstructured textual conversation transcript(s) and other electronic documents provided to the chat service 225 as user input. The natural language processor 261 may perform various methods and techniques for analyzing user input (e.g., syntactic analysis, semantic analysis, etc.). The natural language processor 261 may be configured to recognize and analyze any number of natural languages. In some embodiments, the natural language processor 261 may parse passages of the user input. Further, the natural language processor 261 may include various modules to perform analyses of the user input. These modules may include, but are not limited to, a tokenizer 262, a part-of-speech (POS) tagger 263, a semantic relationship identifier 264, and a syntactic relationship identifier 265. Embodiments of tokenizer 262 may be a computer module that performs lexical analysis. The tokenizer 262 may convert a sequence of characters into a sequence of tokens. A token may be a string of characters included in the user input and/or an electronic documents provided by the user and categorized as a meaningful symbol. Further, in some embodiments, the tokenizer 262 may identify word boundaries of the text inputted into the chat service 225 and break text passages within the user input into component text elements, such as words, multiword tokens, numbers, and punctuation marks. In some embodiments, the tokenizer 262 may receive a string of characters, identify the lexemes in the string, and categorize them into tokens. Both Kshirsagar and Liang are directed to orchestrated chat services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kshirsagar to include the workflow is triggered to run based on interpreting a natural language query from a user in the chat session, using a natural language processing technique that parses the natural language query into tokens for understanding by the processor set as taught by Liang to provide a more accurate analysis of natural language input.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshirsagar US 2023/0247019 A1 in view of Pak US 2024/0249148 A1 as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Akkapeddi US 20250061125 A1.
As per Claim 6 Kshirsagar does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filtering includes masking information in the data that is impermissible to the user role. However, Akkapeddi para. 30 teaches for example the rule sets 140 may require that a physical document may have data extracted by the processor 102 in a first version that auto-masks certain some sensitive information in the document that should not be provided to un-authorized local devices 108B and/or their users, while having a second version that does not mask the sensitive information in order to provide this to local devices 108B and/or their users that do have appropriate permissions. For example, in a non-limiting example, a system log that includes user passwords may have the length of the passwords extracted for providing to a requesting process 146 that is concerned with password rule compliance, while including the entire password for a second requesting process 146 which is concerned with restoring access to a user that has lost their password. Both Kshirsagar and Akkapeddi are directed to managing access based on user permissions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kshirsagar to include wherein the filtering includes masking information in the data that is impermissible to the user role as taught by Akkapeddi to maintain security and privacy (see para 30).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshirsagar US 2023/0247019 A1 in view of Pak US 2024/0249148 A1 as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Schwartz US 20220114267 A1.
As per Claim 7 Kshirsagar does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filtering includes hiding information in the data that is impermissible to the user role. However, Jaudon para. 47 teaches For example, as the user 410 may be not allowed to see the client contact information, the client payment information, and the contract value, the filtered content 417 may include a redacted version of the document 415 in which the client contact information, the client payment information, and the contract value are removed or hidden and, hence, not displayed to the user 410. Thus, the system 200 can hide any information that is not pertinent to the role of the user 410. Both Kshirsagar and Schwartz are directed to managing access based on user permissions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kshirsagar to include wherein the filtering includes hiding information in the data that is impermissible to the user role as taught by Schwartz to maintain security and privacy and make it easier to control access rights (see para. 3).
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625