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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 05/13/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 6 and 11 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 6 and 11 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 6 and 11 recite “a computer-implemented method comprising: building a computer-executable solution using a standard operating procedure (SOP) file and a natural language understood and input by users and without using programming codes, wherein the SOP file comprises, in a form of the natural language, prescriptive statements, descriptive statements for each of the prescriptive statements, and flow charts, and wherein the computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the building the computer-executable solution comprises: parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the SOP file to identify the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts in the form of the natural language; determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, one each for each of the prescriptive statement, and setting each of the local statements of intent in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling requirements for executing the computer-executable solution and is determined by analyzing a corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to natural language data stored in a database; determining, by the processor, for each of the local statements of intent details of n number of entities, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the n number of entities by analyzing the descriptive statements associated with the corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to the natural language data stored in the database and setting each of the entities and the attributes to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the entity and differentiate the entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of adjective phrase and an adverb phrase; forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is designated as a trigger combinatorial-entity-state; determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships based on one or more of predefined rules, constraints, and formulae between the local statements of intent based on the flow charts, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein the relationships are determined by analyzing the flow charts with respect to the natural language data stored in the database; and receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent, wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent, and wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion, wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent“.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “building a computer-executable solution using a standard operating procedure (SOP) file and a natural language understood and input by users and without using programming codes, wherein the SOP file comprises, in a form of the natural language, prescriptive statements, descriptive statements for each of the prescriptive statements, and flow charts, and wherein the computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “building a solution (designing algorithms or workflows, which can be executable by a general purpose computer)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may build a computer-executable solution using a standard operating procedure (SOP) file and a natural language understood and input by users and without using programming codes, wherein the SOP file comprises, in a form of the natural language, prescriptive statements, descriptive statements for each of the prescriptive statements, and flow charts, and wherein the computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “wherein the building the computer-executable solution comprises: parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the SOP file to identify the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts in the form of the natural language” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may parse the SOP file to identify the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts in the form of the natural language with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, one each for each of the prescriptive statement, and setting each of the local statements of intent in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling requirements for executing the computer-executable solution and is determined by analyzing a corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to natural language data stored in a database” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine the local statements of intent, one each for each of the prescriptive statement, and setting each of the local statements of intent in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling requirements for executing the computer-executable solution and is determined by analyzing a corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to natural language data stored in a database with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “determining, by the processor, for each of the local statements of intent details of n number of entities, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the n number of entities by analyzing the descriptive statements associated with the corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to the natural language data stored in the database and setting each of the entities and the attributes to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the entity and differentiate the entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of adjective phrase and an adverb phrase” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine for each of the local statements of intent details of n number of entities, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the n number of entities by analyzing the descriptive statements associated with the corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to the natural language data stored in the database and setting each of the entities and the attributes to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the entity and differentiate the entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of adjective phrase and an adverb phrase with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is designated as a trigger combinatorial-entity-state” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “forming a set of states (designing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may form for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is designated as a trigger combinatorial-entity-state with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships based on one or more of predefined rules, constraints, and formulae between the local statements of intent based on the flow charts, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein the relationships are determined by analyzing the flow charts with respect to the natural language data stored in the database” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a plurality of distinct relationships based on one or more of predefined rules, constraints, and formulae between the local statements of intent based on the flow charts, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein the relationships are determined by analyzing the flow charts with respect to the natural language data stored in the database with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute,” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “changing (values representing states)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may change the binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute based on information received by the processor from the agent with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “changing (values representing states)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may change the binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion for each entity with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “changing (values representing states)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may change the binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “changing (values representing states)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may change the binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 6 and 11 of “wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “changing (values representing states)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may change each combinatorial-entity-state in the set from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 6 and 11 recite additional elements such as “receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 6 and 11 recite additional elements such as “wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 2, 7 and 12 of “identifying parts of speech in content of the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify parts of speech in content of the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 2, 7 and 12 of “resolving co-references in the content of the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts, particularly pronouns by their antecedents” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “resolving co-references [matching or mapping]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may resolve co-references in the content of the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts, particularly pronouns by their antecedents with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 2, 7 and 12 of “traversing inheritance relationships to remove ambiguity in the content” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “traversing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may traverse inheritance relationships to remove ambiguity in the content with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 2, 7 and 12 of “marking one or more portions of the content in case of ambiguity” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “marking (labeling)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may mark one or more portions of the content in case of ambiguity with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 7 and 12 recite additional elements such as “receiving user inputs to disambiguate the one or more ambiguous portions”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 8 and 13 recite additional elements such as “wherein parsing the SOP file is using a distributed document parsing system, wherein the distributed document parsing system is parse2Run, wherein the parse2Run comprises at least one of a Core Pass, a Reference Pass, a Relationship Pass, an Understanding Pass, a Process Pass, an Enrichment Pass, and a Compliance Pass”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4, 9 and 14 recite additional elements such as “wherein the natural language is based on one or more native languages, one or more sign languages, one or more symbols, one or more numericals, or a combination thereof”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5, 10 and 15 recite additional elements such as “wherein determining the entities is based on noun phrases in the descriptive statements”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 are also similarly rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 6 and 11 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, the prior-art, Hart (US PGPub 20010051938), in view of Ueno (US PGPub 20160203007), in view of Polk (US PGPub 20030130918), in view of Ferrieux (US PGPub 20050119876) and further in view of Drapeau (US PGPub 20200389472) failed to disclose: a computer-implemented method comprising: building a computer-executable solution using a standard operating procedure (SOP) file and a natural language understood and input by users and without using programming codes, wherein the SOP file comprises, in a form of the natural language, prescriptive statements, descriptive statements for each of the prescriptive statements, and flow charts, and wherein the computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the building the computer-executable solution comprises: parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the SOP file to identify the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts in the form of the natural language; determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, one each for each of the prescriptive statement, and setting each of the local statements of intent in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling requirements for executing the computer-executable solution and is determined by analyzing a corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to natural language data stored in a database; determining, by the processor, for each of the local statements of intent details of n number of entities, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the n number of entities by analyzing the descriptive statements associated with the corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to the natural language data stored in the database and setting each of the entities and the attributes to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the entity and differentiate the entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of adjective phrase and an adverb phrase; forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is designated as a trigger combinatorial-entity-state; determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships based on one or more of predefined rules, constraints, and formulae between the local statements of intent based on the flow charts, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein the relationships are determined by analyzing the flow charts with respect to the natural language data stored in the database; and receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent, wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent, and wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion, wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Hart, Ueno, Polk, Ferrieux and Drapeau discloses of a computer-implemented method comprising: building a computer-executable solution using a standard operating procedure (SOP) file and a natural language understood and input by users and without using programming codes, wherein the SOP file comprises, in a form of the natural language, prescriptive statements, descriptive statements for each of the prescriptive statements, and flow charts, and wherein the computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the building the computer-executable solution comprises: parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the SOP file to identify the prescriptive statements, the descriptive statements, and the flow charts in the form of the natural language; determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, one each for each of the prescriptive statement, and setting each of the local statements of intent in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling requirements for executing the computer-executable solution and is determined by analyzing a corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to natural language data stored in a database; determining, by the processor, for each of the local statements of intent details of n number of entities, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the n number of entities by analyzing the descriptive statements associated with the corresponding prescriptive statement with respect to the natural language data stored in the database and setting each of the entities and the attributes to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the entity and differentiate the entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of adjective phrase and an adverb phrase; determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships based on one or more of predefined rules, constraints, and formulae between the local statements of intent based on the flow charts, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein the relationships are determined by analyzing the flow charts with respect to the natural language data stored in the database; and receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent, wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent, and wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion.
However, the prior art, Hart, Ueno, Polk, Ferrieux and Drapeau failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is designated as a trigger combinatorial-entity-state; wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent”.
Claim 6 is the system claim, similar to the claim 1, and claim 11 is the product claim, similar to the claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-15 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights