DETAILED ACTION
This examination is in response to the communication filed on 10/282024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending, where claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 and 03/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first determination module”, “second determination module” and “conversion module” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 8, and 14 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 5 recites the limitation "the information part of the function block" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the information part of the function block" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the function block that is presented in the form of a function block” and “the function block that is presented in the form of a label diagram” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the information part of the function block" in line 5. 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “determining a first mapping…”, “determining a second mapping…”, “…converting the natural language sentence into the function block, or converting the function block into the natural language sentence…”.
The limitations of “determining…”, “determining…”, and “converting…” as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). That is, other than reciting “modules” (claim 10) nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person
determining a first mapping relationship between a subject in a natural language sentence and a function block header of a function block, wherein the subject corresponds to a resource in a work cell (e.g., by the person parsing the natural language sentence to determine a function block for a corresponding subject of the sentence),
determining a second mapping relationship between a predicate in the natural language sentence and a function block name of the function block, wherein the predicate corresponds to a service operation of the resource (e.g., by the person parsing the natural language sentence to determine an action/service to be performed), and
based on the first mapping relationship and the second mapping relationship, converting the natural language sentence into the function block, or converting the function block into the natural language sentence, wherein the function block is presented int eh form of a function block type diagram, the function block is adapted to describe a work flow, and the workflow represents the resource executing the service operation (e.g., by the person either drawing a function block type diagram corresponding to the natural language sentence or a natural language sentence corresponding to the function block type diagram)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of first and second “determining modules” and a “conversion module” are all recited at a high-level of generality, and page 52 of the Specification describes the use of a general-purpose processor, e.g., CPU. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1 and 10 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of first and second “determining modules” and a “conversion module” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
With respect to dependent claims 2-7 and 11-15, these claims are directed the determination and conversions of different grammatical functions within the natural language sentence to respect elements of the function block diagram. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person mapping the grammatical functions to function block diagram elements as claimed. No additional elements are present.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 9, these claims are directed to converting the function block diagram to a label diagram and sequentially connection function blocks based on instruction label order. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person converting the function block into the label diagram format and connecting multiple function blocks as claimed. No additional elements are present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Sanchez Merchan (US 2021/0117881) determined to be the closed prior art, teaches a system and method for using natural language sentences to construct workflows. The method include, inter alia, parsing the natural language input to identify grammatical elements, such a subject, predicate, object, etc., and mapping the identified grammatical elements to data objects and actions in a workflow database. However, Sanchez Mercan fails to disclose the workflow elements are presented in the form of a function block type diagram or that the grammatical elements parsed from the natural language input are mapped to the specific function block elements, e.g., header, name, information part, etc. as claimed.
Lee (US 6,931,288) teaches a user interface and system for creating function block diagrams which include various function block elements, such an pin datatype indica (220), block tag name indicia 270, a block tag, etc. However, Lee fails to specifically disclose or suggest that the function block includes a header which corresponds to a resource and a name which corresponds to a service operation.
Therefore, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a conversion method for a natural language sentence, the method comprising:
determining a first mapping relationship between a subject in a natural language sentence and a function block header of a function block, wherein the subject corresponds to a resource in a work cell;
determining a second mapping relationship between a predicate in the natural language sentence and a function block name of the function block, wherein the predicate corresponds to a service operation of the resource; and
based on the first mapping relationship and the second mapping relationship, converting the natural language sentence into the function block, or converting the function block into the natural language sentence, as recited in independent claims 1 and 7.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 these claims variously depend from independent claim 1 or 10 and therefore, contain allowable subject matter for at least those reasons presented above with regard to claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Begert et al. (US 2022/0244975 A1) teaches a method for generating natural language content describing a workflow;
Rafferty et al. (US 2022/0004954 A1) teaches a method and system for using natural language processing and machine learning to generate workflows;
Jasinski et al. “A Workflow Management Framework for the Dynamic Generation of Workflows that is Independent of the Application Environment” teaches a workflow management framework that uses dynamically generated workflows to control a managed environment; and
Deneke et al. “Towards a Domain-Specific Modeling Language for Customer Data Integration Workflow” teaches a domain-specific modeling language for generating workflows meeting a collection of intent requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENNY L CAUDLE whose telephone number is (703)756-1432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am to 5:00 pm eastern.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/PENNY L CAUDLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights