DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/23/2024 and 6/10/2024 have been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 of the current application (Hereby known as ‘680) is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12,664,498 (Hereby known as ‘498). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 18, Claims 1, 9, and 18 of the current application (‘680) recites substantially similar steps of '498 – Claim 1.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 of ‘680 recites the steps of:
determining a representation of a process, wherein the representation of the process includes: a plurality of states, and one or more transitions among states of the plurality of states;
accessing a plurality of data objects, wherein each of the data objects is associated with a respective set of properties;
accessing, for each of the plurality of data objects, respective state information associated with the data objects;
determining an automation associated with at least a first state of the plurality of states; and
generating, based at least in part on the automation, a prompt for a large language model (“LLM”), wherein the prompt includes at least:
an indication of the first state, and
indications of one or more data objects, of the plurality of data objects, associated with the first state.
Whereas Claim 1 of ‘498 states:
determining a representation of a process, wherein the representation of the process includes: a plurality of states, and one or more transitions among states of the plurality of states;
accessing a plurality of data objects, wherein each of the data objects is associated with a respective set of properties;
accessing, for each of the plurality of data objects, respective state information associated with the data objects;
determining, for at least a first transition of the one or more transitions, and based on the state information associated with the plurality of data objects, a first portion of the plurality of data objects that has transitioned along the first transition;
causing generation of an interactive graphical user interface including:
a graph-based visualization of at least a portion of the plurality of states and the one or more transitions, wherein the graph-based visualization is generated based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of data objects and associated properties and state information, wherein the graph-based visualization includes edges between respective states that are indicative of transitions of the one or more transitions;
receiving a selection of a first state of the plurality of states; and
updating the interactive graphical user interface to cause display of a view of one or more data objects of the plurality of data objects associated with the first state.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Thus, Claims 1, 9, and 18 of the current application are obvious variants of claim 1 in ‘498.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 recite the limitations of determining a representation of a process, wherein the representation of the process includes: a plurality of states, and one or more transitions among states of the plurality of states (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), accessing a plurality of data objects, wherein each of the data objects is associated with a respective set of properties (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), accessing, for each of the plurality of data objects, respective state information associated with the data objects (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining an automation associated with at least a first state of the plurality of states (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and generating, based at least in part on the automation, a prompt for a large language model (“LLM”), wherein the prompt includes at least: an indication of the first state, and indications of one or more data objects, of the plurality of data objects, associated with the first state (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of generating a prompt, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting use of hardware processors, system, storage mediums, computer program product, and models, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of transmitting an analytics report of user/customer behavior, which is a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The hardware devices and models are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0095] The process information aggregator 104 may, for example, be a computing system (e.g., a server computing device, desktop computing device, a computing device associated with a real-world object associated with a process, etc.).”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the hardware processors, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional element of an interactive graphical user interface, are highly generalized when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (U.S. Publication No. 2022/032,7006) in view of McRaven (U.S. Publication No. 2021/011,7051) in further view of Hawes (U.S. Publication No. 2024/040,3103).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 18, Makhija, a system and method for process orchestration in enterprise application of a codeless platform, teaches a computer-implemented method for process management and automation via interactions with a large language model (“LLM”), the computer-implemented method comprising, by one or more hardware processors executing program instructions:
determining a representation of a process, wherein the representation of the process includes: a plurality of states, and one or more transitions among states of the plurality of states ([0080] a workflow visualization includes process orchestration generator through Model driven AI pattern which is generated using combination of historical workflow and details from experts. Modeling decision of existing business process are driven manually by Subject Matter Expert, and this is where the ML makes predictions based on the historical workflow data as predictions brings knowledge of operational/business process and interpretation and the predictions are non-deterministic and in [0111] there is a state which has an entry action, an action that is executed upon entering the state, and an exit action, an action that is executed upon leaving the state);
accessing a plurality of data objects, wherein each of the data objects is associated with a respective set of properties ([0071] data objects include event data object action data object and access control data objects, stakeholder types, rule expression data object, master data objects. The event data objects, and action data objects arc mapped to endpoints of the APL);
accessing, for each of the plurality of data objects, respective state information associated with the data objects ([0071] data objects above are connected/associated to action data objects and action data objects are associated to state data objects);
determining an automation associated with at least a first state of the plurality of states ([0034] The user interface also generates a "Graph View" depicting a representation of the operations (selections, filtering, etc.) conducted by the user on the data objects. Once an analysis is completed for the initial data objects, the user may further select a new set of data objects and apply the operations in the Graph View to the new data objects. The provenance of the sequential analysis is maintained by the Graph View, and the user may edit the analysis at any point, causing automatic downstream updates and
Although Makhija teaches the automation above, it does not explicitly teach an indication of the first state.
McRaven teaches an indication of the first state, and indications of one or more data objects, of the plurality of data objects, associated with the first state [0077] In addition to visually showing relationships between the data objects, a user interface may allow various other manipulations. For example, the objects within a database 209 may be searched using a search interface, inspected, filtered, and statistically aggregated, among other operations and visualizations. For example, by performing one or more filtering and/or aggregation functions on the data represented by the objects, some sort of time-varying baseline are generated, indicative of expected data with respect to time, from which erroneous data can be detected either manually or automatically, for example with respect to a predetermined or default outlier conditions).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automation and generation of models of Makhija with the state information of McRaven as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to modeling using data objects, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase efficiency of the analysis of found objects as taught in [0035] of McRaven.
Neither Makhija or McRaven explicitly states creating a prompt.
Hawes, a large language model response optimization system and method which uses custom computer languages, teaches determination and generation of prompts for a large language model as in [0051-52].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automation and generation of models of the combination of Makhija and McRaven with the generation of prompts of Hawes as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to modeling using data objects, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve interactions and make them more effective as taught in [0022-23] of Hawes.
Examiner notes Makhija teaches one or more computer-readable storage mediums, processors, and a computer program product ([0141-142] mediums, products, and processors).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Makhija teaches further comprising, by the one or more hardware processors executing program instructions:
causing generation of an interactive graphical user interface including:
a graph-based visualization of at least a portion of the plurality of states and the one or more transitions, wherein the graph-based visualization is generated based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of data objects and associated properties and state information ([0076] Visualization is created with a customized grew which uses the information as above and [0080] models are generated using combination of historical workflow and details from experts).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 11-17, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claim was amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240403290 A1
Hawes; Matthew et al.
LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL RESPONSE OPTIMIZATION USING CUSTOM COMPUTER LANGUAGES
US 20220327006 A1
Makhija; Subhash et al.
PROCESS ORCHESTRATION IN ENTERPRISE APPLICATION OF CODELESS PLATFORM
US 20210264332 A1
Pingali; Ashwin K. et al.
PROCESS DISCOVERY AND OPTIMIZATION USING TIME-SERIES DATABASES, GRAPH-ANALYTICS, AND MACHINE LEARNING
US 20210117051 A1
McRaven; John et al.
OBJECT-CENTRIC USER SYSTEM AND GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
US 20240403103 A1
Frick; Jakob et al.
FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER-BASED MODELS
US 20240095077 A1
Singh; Ishika et al.
PROMPT GENERATOR FOR USE WITH ONE OR MORE MACHINE LEARNING PROCESSES
US 20220206993 A1
Layton; Stuart P. et al.
MULTI-SERVICE BUSINESS PLATFORM SYSTEM HAVING CUSTOM OBJECT SYSTEMS AND METHODS
US 20220101113 A1
Tam; Lickkong et al.
KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY USING A NEURAL NETWORK
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 8/4/2026
Prosecution Insights