DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15 and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See new reference of Griffith).
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,307,753 B2), in view of Griffith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0247965 A1) and Downs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256216 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haramati teaches a computing system comprising: at least one memory; one or more hardware processing units coupled to the at least one memory; and one or more computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
for a first monitored client system, receiving a first set of one or more modifications to a process template (col. 22, line 20-28 and 50-57, a customized template, as used herein, may refer to a group of one or more building blocks that may be combined to form one or more specific structures; the building blocks may include columns, rows, tables, communication components, charts, texts, images, workspaces, board views, dashboards, widgets, actions, …; a customized templates may include one or more structures for specific application such as marketing, content production, project management, sales and customer management, freelancing, office operations, startup planning,…that involve tracking of different metrics and tasks; also see col. 27, line 55-65, an original author, a current template owner, persons authorized by the original author or current owner, or any other authorized user or other authorized individual may update the custom template by adding, modifying, or removing building blocks to and from the customized template);
for a second monitored client system, receiving a second set of one or more modifications to the process template, wherein each modification of the second set comprises a modification of an event definition or the addition of an event definition (col. 22, line 20-28 and 50-57, a customized template, as used herein, may refer to a group of one or more building blocks that may be combined to form one or more specific structures; the building blocks may include columns, rows, tables, communication components, charts, texts, images, workspaces, board views, dashboards, widgets, actions, …; a customized templates may include one or more structures for specific application such as marketing, content production, project management, sales and customer management, freelancing, office operations, startup planning,…that involve tracking of different metrics and tasks; also see col. 21, line 13-27, a user may customize computer applications by integrating predesigned templates, such as those designed by others, into the computer application; also see col. 26, line 36-48, the tailoring of data may refer to modifying the integrated customized template to suit the user’s specific application; the user may modified the customized template by replacing any existing values stored in the customized template…; also see col. 27, line 36-52).
Haramati does not explicitly disclose: the process template comprising one or more event definitions operatively associated with a set of defined process steps, each event definition being operatively associated with a query over structured records, each record representing an occurrence of one of the defined process steps in a process instance.
Griffith teaches: the process template comprising one or more event definitions operatively associated with a set of defined process steps, each event definition being operatively associated with a query over structured records, each record representing an occurrence of one of the defined process steps in a process instance (paragraph [0033], process template enable any enterprise using the system to standardize how specific processes are to be performed, while providing almost infinite level of user flexibility; also see paragraph [0042]-[0043], when a user define a process template within the system the user automatically has access to: 1) templates, 2) relationship and extensions for the process variables, 3) links to attach controls, risks, contingencies, documents, assignments, and more; also see paragraph [0045]-[0046], the saved process template may be expanded by the events and tasks that are specific to the process; pre-existing process component may attach to these events and tasks as program object to detect the occurrence of these events and tasks and to report on their successful completion and the successful completion of the process; also see paragraph [0101]-[0102], each task defines a specific activity that must be completed within a specific timeline; for each event, a series of tasks have been defined and identified; tasks are attached to the event definition; the definition includes an overall description of task steps, organizational identification, etc.; also see paragraph [0059], the search processes may allow a user , based on role and access rights, to search for processes under nay of number of different criteria).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the process template comprising one or more event definitions operatively associated with a set of defined process steps, each event definition being operatively associated with a query over structured records, each record representing an occurrence of one of the defined process steps in a process instance into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include the process template comprising one or more event definitions operatively associated with a set of defined process steps, each event definition being operatively associated with a query over structured records, each record representing an occurrence of one of the defined process steps in a process instance to be re-usable model to standardize a specific process or sub-type of process across the enterprise to ensure consistency and reliability of execution and results (Griffith, paragraph [0048]).
Haramati as modified by Griffith do not explicitly disclose: determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent based on evaluation of the respective event definitions as applied, or as to be applied, with respect to the structured records representing occurrences of the defined process step; determining whether an amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies a threshold; in response to determining that the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold, updating the process template to include a modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template.
Downs teaches: determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent based on evaluation of the respective event definitions as applied, or as to be applied, with respect to the structured records representing occurrences of the defined process step (paragraph [0068], the process of determining whether two electronic document templates have similar document structure…, involving the identification of structural elements within each of the electronic document templates; the process of identifying semantically similar content in the electronic document templates is even more complex, as the content items are identified, then the content items are analyzed to identify semantic information; these semantic meanings can then be analyzed in comparison to each other to determine whether they are semantically similar to a degree that a corresponding component template should be created based on semantic similarity of the content items; in combination the process template comprising one or more event definitions operatively associated with a set of defined process steps, each event definition being operatively associated with a query over structured records, each record representing an occurrence of one of the defined process steps in a process instance taught by Griffith, it reads on as claimed);
determining whether an amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies a threshold (paragraph [0073]-[0075], the similarity of two content items is determined by comparing the respective values associated with a first one of the content items to the values associated with a second one of the content items; determining whether the combined similarity score meets a threshold value to determine whether there is semantic match); in response to determining that the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold, updating the process template to include a modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template (paragraph [0006], if the similarity value reaches a threshold value, the content items may be considered semantic matches; also see paragraph [0027], creating component templates which contain content that is common to two or more previous templates, and can replace the common content in the previous templates; noted, templates with content being replaced with modified component/content is interpreted as “an updated process template”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent based on evaluation of the respective event definitions as applied, or as to be applied, with respect to the structured records representing occurrences of the defined process step; determining whether an amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies a threshold; in response to determining that the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold, updating the process template to include a modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent based on evaluation of the respective event definitions as applied, or as to be applied, with respect to the structured records representing occurrences of the defined process step; determining whether an amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies a threshold; in response to determining that the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold, updating the process template to include a modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template to experience cost savings in the areas of document development and production, while maximizing the impact of its enterprise to client communication (Downs, paragraph [0002], line 8-11).
Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs further teach:
deploying the updated template, or updates to the updated template, to a client system for use in process mining operations (Haramati, col. 28, line 57-67, teaches the updates may be considered “pushed” to the user, even though the updates may ultimately reside in a remote location; pushing the updated customized template to the user-facing applications may occur within a predetermined time after storing the updated customized template in the repository, while Downs, paragraph [0027], teaches creating component templates which contain content that is common to two or more previous templates, and can replace the common content in the previous templates).
Regarding claim 7, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the process template defines a selection of data and a modification of the second set modifies the selection of data (Haramati, col. 21, line 13-27, a user may customize computer applications by integrating predesigned templates, such as those designed by others, into the computer application; also see col. 26, line 36-48, the tailoring of data may refer to modifying the integrated customized template to suit the user’s specific application; the user may modified the customized template by replacing any existing values stored in the customized template…; also see col. 27, line 36-52).
Regarding claim 8, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 7, further teach wherein the process template defines a selection of data and a modification of the second set select an attribute used in modification of an event definition or added event definition in the first set (Haramati, col. 21, line 13-27, a user may customize computer applications by integrating predesigned templates, such as those designed by others, into the computer application; also see col. 26, line 36-48, the tailoring of data may refer to modifying the integrated customized template to suit the user’s specific application; the user may modified the customized template by replacing any existing values stored in the customized template…; also see col. 27, line 36-52).
As per claims 15 and 18, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 2-4, 16, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,307,753 B2), in view of Griffith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0247965 A1) and Downs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256216 A1) , further in view of Swider et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0134007 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein an event definition comprises, or is associated with, a query of one or more data artifacts.
Swider teaches: wherein an event definition comprises, or is associated with, a query of one or more data artifacts (Swider, paragraph [0043], the search term and/or content that may be associated with a modification or redesign of the set of templates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein an event definition comprises, or is associated with, a query of one or more data artifacts into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein an event definition comprises, or is associated with, a query of one or more data artifacts to automatically generate product designs from templates to conform with desired elements and aesthetics (Swider, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Haramati as modified by Griffith, Downs and Swider teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 2, further teach wherein determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent comprises: determining data artifact attributes accessed by the query (Swider, paragraph [0043], the search term and/or content that may be associated with a modification or redesign of the set of templates; also see paragraph [0047], the server may analyze an image to determine various metrics associated with the image, such as contrast level, brightness, hue, etc.; the server may determine whether a difference in contrast levels meets or exceeds a threshold level; in combination with the teaching of Downs, paragraph [0068], the process of determining whether two electronic document templates have similar document structure…, involving the identification of structural elements within each of the electronic document templates; the process of identifying semantically similar content in the electronic document templates is even more complex, as the content items are identified, then the content items are analyzed to identify semantic information; these semantic meanings can then be analyzed in comparison to each other to determine whether they are semantically similar to a degree that a corresponding component template should be created based on semantic similarity of the content items, it reads on as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Haramati as modified by Griffith, Downs and Swider teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 3, further teach wherein determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent comprises: determining selection conditions associated with the data artifact attributes accessed by the query (Swider, paragraph [0049], comparing metrics associated with content provided to metrics associated with the image(s) retrieved from the image database; the server may compare the contract level of the content to the contrast level of an image to determine if a threshold is met or exceeded; if the threshold is met or exceeded (i.e., the difference in contract levels is larger), the server may refrain from modifying the content; conversely, if the threshold is not met or exceeded (i.e., the difference in contrast level is smaller), the server may determine to modify the content; in combination with the teaching of Downs, paragraph [0068], the process of determining whether two electronic document templates have similar document structure…, involving the identification of structural elements within each of the electronic document templates; the process of identifying semantically similar content in the electronic document templates is even more complex, as the content items are identified, then the content items are analyzed to identify semantic information; these semantic meanings can then be analyzed in comparison to each other to determine whether they are semantically similar to a degree that a corresponding component template should be created based on semantic similarity of the content items, it reads on as claimed).
As per claims 16 and 19, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 21, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 15, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein data artifact attributes are accessed by a query of one or more data artifacts.
Swider teaches: wherein data artifact attributes are accessed by a query of one or more data artifacts (Swider, paragraph [0043], the search term and/or content that may be associated with a modification or redesign of the set of templates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein data artifact attributes are accessed by a query of one or more data artifacts into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein data artifact attributes are accessed by a query of one or more data artifacts to automatically generate product designs from templates to conform with desired elements and aesthetics (Swider, paragraph [0004]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,307,753 B2), in view of Griffith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0247965 A1), Downs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256216 A1) and Swider et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0134007 A1), further in view of Purandare et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0089581 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Haramati as modified by Griffith, Downs and Swider teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 2, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent comprises: executing a first query of a first modified or added event definition and determining first query results; executing a second query of a second modified or added definition and determining second query results; and comparing the first query results and the second query results.
Purandare teaches: wherein determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent comprises: executing a first query of a first modified or added event definition and determining first query results; executing a second query of a second modified or added definition and determining second query results; and comparing the first query results and the second query results ( paragraph [0025]-[0026], when a classic version of collaboration site is updated to include the modern features, some of the modern features may replace some of the features that were provided by the classic version of the collaboration site; also see paragraph [0038], the iterative update logic may receive (e.g., collect or retrieve) the collaboration site(s) and the template(s) from the store; also see paragraph [0043], as user of the collaboration sites perform more operations with regards to features of those sites and as collaboration sites and template are iteratively updated, correlations of usage data regarding those operations and available features will provide value to the users may become more accurate; also see paragraph [0039], the iterative update logic correlates usage data, which indicates operations performed by users with regards to at least some first features, and information regarding second features that are provided by other collaboration sites to identify feature(s) included in the second features that have likelihood of adding value to the user that is greater than or equal to a likelihood threshold; the collaboration site(s) may include specific collaboration site and other collaboration sites).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent comprises: executing a first query of a first modified or added event definition and determining first query results; executing a second query of a second modified or added definition and determining second query results; and comparing the first query results and the second query results into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein determining whether at least a subset of the first set and the second set are semantically equivalent comprises: executing a first query of a first modified or added event definition and determining first query results; executing a second query of a second modified or added definition and determining second query results; and comparing the first query results and the second query results to reduce an amount of time and/or resources that are consumed to update a collaboration site or a template (Purandare, paragraph [0027], line 1-3).
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,307,753 B2), in view of Griffith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0247965 A1) and Downs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256216 A1), further in view of Purandare et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0089581 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining a number of events defined in the template.
Purandare teaches: wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining a number of events defined in the template (paragraph [0025], updating collaboration sites or templates in accordance with any one or more of the example techniques; also see paragraph [0058], correlation of the usage data and the information regarding the second features may indicate that the users of other collaboration sites who perform operations with regard to one or more of the first features perform operations with regards to at least one of the feature(s) included in the second features; also paragraph [0085], determining that the second features (s) have the likelihood of adding value to the users that is greater than or equal to the likelihood threshold at step 1304 is based at least in part on knowledge of (a) a proportion of the users who open the file on the specified collaboration site, (b) a proportion of the users who share a file on the specified collaboration site, (c) a proportion of the users who dirty a file on the specified collaboration site, and/or (d) a proportion of the users who share the specified collaboration site ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining a number of events defined in the template into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining a number of events defined in the template to reduce an amount of time and/or resources that are consumed to update a collaboration site or a template (Purandare, paragraph [0027], line 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Haramati as modified by Griffith, Downs and Purandare teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 9, further teach where the threshold is lower for templates that comprise a lower number of events than for templates that comprise a higher number of events (Purandare, paragraph [0085], determining that the second features (s) have the likelihood of adding value to the users that is greater than or equal to the likelihood threshold at step 1304 is based at least in part on knowledge of (a) a proportion of the users who open the file on the specified collaboration site, (b) a proportion of the users who share a file on the specified collaboration site, (c) a proportion of the users who dirty a file on the specified collaboration site, and/or (d) a proportion of the users who share the specified collaboration site).
Regarding claim 11, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining one or more characteristics of respective clients associated with respective modifications of the first set and respective clients associated with the second set and the threshold is with respect to clients having a common characteristic value.
Purandare teaches wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining one or more characteristics of respective clients associated with respective modifications of the first set and respective clients associated with the second set and the threshold is with respect to clients having a common characteristic value (paragraph [0039], the specified collaboration site is configured to facilitate collaboration among users of the specified collaboration site (e.g., users of the user system 102A-102M); iterative update logic correlate usage data, which indicates operations performed by the user with regard to at least some of the first features, and information regarding second features that are provided by other collaboration sites to identify feature(s) included in second features that have a likelihood of adding values to the user that is greater than or equal to a likelihood threshold; as users of collaboration sites perform more operations with regards to features of those sites and as collaboration sites and templates are iteratively updated, correlation of usage data regarding those operations and available features and estimates of the likelihood that the available features will provide value to the user may become more accurate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining one or more characteristics of respective clients associated with respective modifications of the first set and respective clients associated with the second set and the threshold is with respect to clients having a common characteristic value into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein determining whether the amount of semantically equivalent modifications satisfies the threshold comprises determining one or more characteristics of respective clients associated with respective modifications of the first set and respective clients associated with the second set and the threshold is with respect to clients having a common characteristic value to reduce an amount of time and/or resources that are consumed to update a collaboration site or a template (Purandare, paragraph [0027], line 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Haramati as modified by Griffith, Downs and Purandare teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 11, further teach wherein deploying the update template comprises: sending the updated process template, or updates to the updated process template, to clients having the common characteristic value (Haramati, col. 28, line 57-67, teaches the updates may be considered “pushed” to the user, even though the updates may ultimately reside in a remote location; pushing the updated customized template to the user-facing applications may occur within a predetermined time after storing the updated customized template in the repository, while Downs, paragraph [0027], teaches creating component templates which contain content that is common to two or more previous templates, and can replace the common content in the previous templates and Purandare, paragraph [0039], teaches the specified collaboration site is configured to facilitate collaboration among users of the specified collaboration site (e.g., users of the user system 102A-102M); iterative update logic correlate usage data, which indicates operations performed by the user with regard to at least some of the first features, and information regarding second features that are provided by other collaboration sites to identify feature(s) included in second features that have a likelihood of adding values to the user that is greater than or equal to a likelihood threshold; as users of collaboration sites perform more operations with regards to features of those sites and as collaboration sites and templates are iteratively updated, correlation of usage data regarding those operations and available features and estimates of the likelihood that the available features will provide value to the user may become more accurate; also see pargraph [0041], for each iteration, iterative update logic presents a preview of the updated version for viewing by person(s) associated with collaboration site).
Regarding claim 14, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein updating the process template to include a modification of the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template comprises evaluating performance of the semantically equivalent modifications and selecting a more performant modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to include in the updated process template.
Purandare teaches: wherein updating the process template to include a modification of the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template comprises evaluating performance of the semantically equivalent modifications and selecting a more performant modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to include in the updated process template (paragraph [0025], updating collaboration sites or templates in accordance with any one or more of the example techniques; also see paragraph [0058], correlation of the usage data and the information regarding the second features may indicate that the users of other collaboration sites who perform operations with regard to one or more of the first features perform operations with regards to at least one of the feature(s) included in the second features; also paragraph [0085], determining that the second features (s) have the likelihood of adding value to the users that is greater than or equal to the likelihood threshold at step 1304 is based at least in part on knowledge of (a) a proportion of the users who open the file on the specified collaboration site, (b) a proportion of the users who share a file on the specified collaboration site, (c) a proportion of the users who dirty a file on the specified collaboration site, and/or (d) a proportion of the users who share the specified collaboration site).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein updating the process template to include a modification of the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template comprises evaluating performance of the semantically equivalent modifications and selecting a more performant modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to include in the updated process template into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein updating the process template to include a modification of the semantically equivalent modifications to provide an updated process template comprises evaluating performance of the semantically equivalent modifications and selecting a more performant modification corresponding to the semantically equivalent modifications to include in the updated process template to reduce an amount of time and/or resources that are consumed to update a collaboration site or a template (Purandare, paragraph [0027], line 1-3).
Claims 13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,307,753 B2), in view of Griffith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0247965 A1) and Downs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256216 A1), further in view of Tripathy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0139417 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Haramati as modified by Griffith and Downs teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the template comprises a domain model, the domain model being operationally linked to one or more computer implementation artifacts storing data for entities represented in the domain model.
Tripathy teaches: wherein the template comprises a domain model, the domain model being operationally linked to one or more computer implementation artifacts storing data for entities represented in the domain model (paragraph [0032], pass the context and additional details to a generative intelligence model; the model can subsequently fetch a workflow domain as context and input the model; data regarding one or more templates can be acquired from a template repository or store; the model can output parameters such as but not limited to transaction types (e.g., invoice, bill, estimate, purchase), status, condition parameter, condition data type, condition operator…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the template comprises a domain model, the domain model being operationally linked to one or more computer implementation artifacts storing data for entities represented in the domain model into template modification of Haramati.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the template comprises a domain model, the domain model being operationally linked to one or more computer implementation artifacts storing data for entities represented in the domain model to automated workflow assistance with generative artificial intelligence (Tripathy, paragraph [0001]).
As per claims 17 and 20, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 13 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights