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
This action is in response to application filed on 07/09/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2, examiner believes “selling_limit” and “selling_privilege” are misspelled in step 202 and step 210, where applicant states “assign_seling_limit” and “revoke_seling_privilege” in step 202, and “revoke_seling_privilege” and “revoke_seiling_privilege” in step 210. Further, in figure 7 step 704, examiner believes the word “generate” is misspelled and instead stated as “Generare” in the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11-15 recites the limitation "The non-transitory machine-readable medium" in the first line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the BRI of machine storage media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. Paragraph [0090] of the specification further states that the terms are defined to include both machine-storage media and transmission media and these terms include both storage devices/media and carrier waves/modulated data signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehres (US 12650818 B2) in further view of Shah et al. (US 20250306868 A1) hereinafter Shah.
Regarding claim 1, discloses
A method comprising: receiving, by at least one hardware processor, an executable in a user-readable format at a first user interface, the executable corresponding to a workflow function, the workflow function relating to a stepwise process within a workflow; (Kehres column 6, lines 40-55 and column 1, lines 1-23 discloses receiving an input associated with a workflow from a user, where the user can generate different functions/steps and processes of the workflow. Further, column 6, lines 55-62 discloses that the user input can be the functionality for the entire workflow or a specific block or step of the workflow).
converting, by the at least one hardware processor, the executable using one of natural language processing or a graph parsing algorithm; (Kehres column 24, lines 44-53, column 8, lines 1-7 column 9, lines 1-14 discloses a language model using natural language processing to take the user’s natural language input, generate a list of steps included within the workflow and outputting a rudimentary workflow and renders the outline into a visual form to display to the user).
accessing, by the at least one hardware processor, an executable file corresponding to the executable where the workflow function is associated with a task library function created by a machine-level language and stored at the executable file; (Kehres column 2, lines 22-39 discloses LLM generating a machine-readable representation of the desired workflow from the inputted natural language, such that the actual code can be created. This machine-readable language can either be used to generate code with the desired workflow or transmitted to another module or server along with instructions to generate the workflow code. Further, in Column 8, lines 35-67, column 9, lines 1-14, and column 13, lines 5-27 discloses the key elements such as tasks, objectives, tools involved, and sequential steps of the workflow are extracted and used to construct the workflow where information about task stored in the task database are used when planning the initial workflow. Thus, demonstrating a task from a task database, i.e. a task library, corresponding to the workflow function which was created by a machine-readable (machine-level) language).
linking, by the at least one hardware processor, the converted executable file to a second user interface, the second user interface configured to present the workflow function in the user-readable format according to the stepwise process within the workflow. (Kehres column 11, lines 1-17 disclose the first LLM generating a human-readable version of the machine-readable description of the workflow and outputting the human-readable version with the user such that the user can approve, revise, and/or deny the description).
Kehres lacks explicitly
converting, by the at least one hardware processor, the executable file using the other of the natural language processing and the graph parsing algorithm; and
Shah teaches
converting, by the at least one hardware processor, the executable file using the other of the natural language processing and the graph parsing algorithm; and (Shah [0081] and [0100]-[0104] discloses receiving a graphic input file and converting the graphic file to a front end output by using a software algorithm to parse the graphic file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
claimed invention to have modified Kehres to incorporate the teachings of Shah to “converting, by the at least one hardware processor, the executable file using the other of the natural language processing and the graph parsing algorithm” in order to have the work flow to have better visualization with multiple options to present the workflow, thus allowing the user to have a better understanding/clarity of their workflow.
Regarding claim 2, Kehres in view of Shah discloses
The method of claim 1, the method further comprising: receiving a change to the workflow at the first user interface; converting the change using one of the natural language processing or the graph parsing algorithm; changing the executable file with the machine-level language to include the change; converting the changed executable file using the other of the natural language processing and the graph parsing algorithm; and linking the converted changed executable file to the second user interface. (Kehres column 12, lines 42-50 and column 9, lines 1-14 discloses the user being able to revise one or more attributes of an existing template to generate the workflow, therefore updating a pre-existing workflow with new changes. Also, after generating a preliminary workflow corresponding to the user input, the user is then able to approve, deny, or revise/change the workflow and repeats the converting processes until the user approves of the flow).
Regarding claim 7, Kehres in view of Shah discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the first user interface comprises a graphical user interface and the second user interface comprises a user interface landing and the method further comprises: receiving an indication of a selection of the first user interface; presenting a graphical element in response to the selection of the first user interface, the graphical element providing an area for receiving the executable; receiving the executable at the graphical element; (Kehres fig. 5c, column 7, lines 24-33, column 20, lines 60-67, and column 21, lines 1-3 discloses receiving a selection from a user by display the graphical element and allowing the user to configure the block. The user may configure the block’s behavior within a workflow the LLM may then generate a rudimentary description of the steps necessary to satisfy the user’s request and displays a message to the user).
With regards to claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus,
claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above. More specifically, the limitations “accessing…” and “receiving…” in claim 1 in combination demonstrate the limitation of claim 9 of a “task library function corresponds to an action within the stepwise process and being associated with the workflow function”.
With regards to claim 10, it is a medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus,
claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 11, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 14, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
With regards to claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus,
claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus,
claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 19, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus,
claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 12-13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehres (US 12650818 B2) in further view of Shah et al. (US 20250306868 A1) hereinafter Shah in further view of Bhatnagar (WO 2025017669 A1) hereinafter Bhatnagar.
Regarding claim 3, Kehres in view of Shah discloses
The method of claim 1
Kehres in view of Shah lacks explicitly
wherein the executable comprises a first executable for a first function of the workflow and the method further comprises receiving a second executable for a second function that occurs after the first function within the workflow.
Bhatnagar teaches
wherein the executable comprises a first executable for a first function of the workflow and the method further comprises receiving a second executable for a second function that occurs after the first function within the workflow. (Bhatnagar abstract, [0007]-[0008] and [0026] discloses a secondary workflow created via a GUI based on determining whether the one or more secondary workflows are required to be implemented to complete the execution of the primary workflow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kehres in view of Shah to incorporate the teachings of Bhatnagar to “wherein the executable comprises a first executable for a first function of the workflow and the method further comprises receiving a second executable for a second function that occurs after the first function within the workflow” in order to add more functions/steps to the overall workflow, allowing for steps to be more organized/simplified.
Regarding claim 5, Kehres in view of Shah discloses
The method of claim 3
Kehres in view of Shah lacks explicitly
The method of claim 3, wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication that the second executable is parallel to the first executable.
Bhatnagar teaches
The method of claim 3, wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication that the second executable is parallel to the first executable. (Bhatnagar [0007] discloses an invoking unit is configured to invoke the primary and secondary workflows to operate in tandem/parallel based on nesting the primary workflow with the one or more secondary workflows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kehres in view of Shah to incorporate the teachings of Bhatnagar to “Wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication that the second executable is parallel to the first executable” in order to have both workflows be able to work together to perform a necessary task, thus improving efficiency of the workflows.
Regarding claim 6, Kehres in view of Shah discloses
The method of claim 3
Kehres in view of Shah lacks explicitly
wherein the workflow comprises a first workflow and the second executable relates to a second workflow and receiving the second executable in the first workflow nests the second workflow within the first workflow.
Bhatnagar teaches
wherein the workflow comprises a first workflow and the second executable relates to a second workflow and receiving the second executable in the first workflow nests the second workflow within the first workflow. (Bhatnagar [0048] discloses after creation of secondary workflows, the primary is nested in the middle of live orders with one or more secondary workflows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kehres in view of Shah to incorporate the teachings of Bhatnagar to “wherein the workflow comprises a first workflow and the second executable relates to a second workflow and receiving the second executable in the first workflow nests the second workflow within the first workflow” in order to satisfy additional gaps and needs of the first workflow, thus making a complete workflow.
With regards to claim 12, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With regards to claim 13, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
With regards to claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus,
claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehres (US 12650818 B2) in further view of Shah et al. (US 20250306868 A1) hereinafter Shah in further view of Bhatnagar (WO 2025017669 A1) hereinafter Bhatnagar in further view of Lui et al. (US 10528367 B1) hereinafter Lui.
Regarding claim 4, Kehres in view of Shah in further view of Bhatnagar discloses
The method of claim 3
Kehres in view of Shah in further view of Bhatnagar lacks explicitly
wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication that the second executable is sequential to the first executable.
Lui teaches
wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication that the second executable is sequential to the first executable. (Lui column 9, lines 65-67 and column 10, lines 1-25 discloses each workflow comprising a sequence of sequential steps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kehres in view of Shah in further view of Bhatnagar to incorporate the teachings of Lui to “wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication that the second executable is sequential to the first executable” in order to further complete the necessary steps of the workflow, thus improving the overall created workflow.
Claim(s) 8, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehres (US 12650818 B2) in further view of Shah et al. (US 20250306868 A1) hereinafter Shah in further view of Birru et al. (US 20250285056 A1) hereinafter Birru.
Regarding claim 8, Kehres in view of Shah discloses
The method of claim 1
Kehres in view of Shah lacks explicitly
wherein the first user interface comprises a user interface landing and the second user interface comprises a graphical user interface and the method further comprises: receiving the executable as text strings;
creating a graphical element; and
presenting the graphical element at the second user interface, wherein the graphical element displays the executable in the user-readable format.
Birru teaches
wherein the first user interface comprises a user interface landing and the second user interface comprises a graphical user interface and the method further comprises: receiving the executable as text strings; (Birru [0008] and [0023]-[0024] discloses a first and second user interface, where first an input from the user is received such as text)
creating a graphical element; and (Birru [0023]-[0024] discloses taking the text input and automatically generating a visual workflow model)
presenting the graphical element at the second user interface, wherein the graphical element displays the executable in the user-readable format. (Birru [0006], [0016], [0037] discloses providing the second user interface with the exemplary directed acyclic graph and rendering the plan visually via the second user interface to offer users a clear/visual representation of the workflow model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kehres in view of Shah to incorporate the teachings of Birru to “wherein the first user interface comprises a user interface landing and the second user interface comprises a graphical user interface and the method further comprises: receiving the executable as text strings; creating a graphical element; and presenting the graphical element at the second user interface, wherein the graphical element displays the executable in the user-readable format” in order to take text instructions and present the workflow visually to provide users a clear and intuitive representation of the workflow, thus improving the process efficiency.
With regards to claim 15, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
With regards to claim 20, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus,
claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights