DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Claims filed 02/11/2025.
Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending.
Divisional
This application is a divisional application of U.S. Application No. 17/532,624 filed on 11/22/2021, (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 02/11/2025.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 5, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 5, 11, 17 each recite in part the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
122
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, respectfully, this feature is non-sensical; i.e. there is not enough information provided to determine a value of Q’ given the provided expression. Although Z has a domain of any real number except 0 (because Z cannot be zero else there would be a division by zero), and Q apparently can take on a domain of all possible real numbers, because this expression is not equated to anything, it is not possible to determine what value Q’ is intended to take given any particular combination of allowable Z and Q.
Therefore, it is not clear what applicant is attempting to claim. For this reason, the claim is found to be indefinite as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Furthermore, claim 18 is recited as depending from claim 1 and yet lacks antecedent basis for “The non-transitory computer readable medium”. Claim 1 is not drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The term “the” is a definite article. As such, this term must refer to a definite previous recitation of the noun which it modifies. However, no previous recitation of “non-transitory computer readable medium” has been provided. Therefore, this limitation lacks an antecedent basis for the claimed step. Because this limitation lacks an antecedent basis, the claim limitation is indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to depend from claim 13 rather than claim 1 which would ameliorate the antecedent basis issue.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance outlined in the MPEP 2106, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 7, and 13:
generating, …, a state action graph (SAG) based on the plurality of states, the plurality of transitions, and the plurality of relationships;
determining, …, a plurality of initial state candidates based at least on the final state and the state action graph;
responsive to the selection of the option to generate the business process model: generating, by the application, the business process model based at least one the state action graph, the final state, and the selected initial state; wherein the business process model defines an automated process that is performable using a corresponding information technology infrastructure to complete the particular activity.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, these limitations fall within the groups Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations), Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)..
That is, as drafted, these steps are a business decision to use a mathematical concept of state-action-graphs to model (i.e. provide relationships) between various business states of a process. The state-action-graph is not applicant’s invention. Furthermore, these states are defined by the business and the relationships between them are defined by the business, and the rules and actions governing transition between one state and another are also defined by the business. The process being modeled by this mathematical concept of a state action graph can be related to any business process as it is not limited per the independent claims and only limited semantically per the dependent claims to be (e.g. per claims 6, 12, 18) a business process model which represents a process in a domain related to one of networking, security systems, datacenter technologies (cloud) computing, robotics, and information of things (loT) devices. Thus the Examiner finds that these steps fall squarely into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and make use of known mathematical concepts, and which could be performed manually, or mentally except for the generic allusion to an application executing on a generic device and display and receipt of information via generic graphical user interfaces.
Regarding Mental Processess, the courts have found the use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper, or a slide rule, even a generic computer) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation such as imagining a state-transition-graph in one’s mind) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address."
The Beauregard claim in CyberSource recited a computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud in online credit card transactions where execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system caused the processors to carry out the steps of detecting fraud in online credit card transactions. The Federal Circuit stated that the machine (in this case, the claimed "one or more processors of a computer system") "must impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope, or otherwise stated, the machine "must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed." The court found that the "incidental use of a computer to perform the mental process" of an otherwise unpatentable method "does not impose a sufficiently meaningful limit on the claim's scope.
In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process. 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 99 USPQ2d at 1695. See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196 (claimed "computations can be made by pencil and paper calculations"); University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper")
Furthermore, there is no technical problem being solved and no technical solution recited in the claims for solving a technical problem. Applicant’s claims are completely devoid of an algorithm for generating such station-action-graph and devoid of any algorithm for determining a plurality of initial state candidates based at least on the final state and the state action graph and generating the business process model based on such state action graph, etc…; hence, it appears these steps are ones which could be performed in the human mind as noted supra.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. processing apparatus and controller) does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case business decision selection) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (data-gathering). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows:
Presenting, by an application executing on a device, on a display of the device, a plurality of first graphical user interfaces;
receiving, via the plurality of first graphical user interfaces, from a user, first information defining a plurality of states, a plurality of transitions, and a plurality of relationships between the plurality of states and the plurality of transitions;
…presenting, by the application, on the display of the device, a second graphical user interface that prompts the user to identify a final state from among the plurality of states;
receiving, by the application via the second graphical user interface, second information defining a final state;
… presenting, by the application, on the display of the device, a third user interface that displays the plurality of initial state candidates and prompts the user to select an initial state; wherein the plurality of initial state candidates and the final state define at least in part a plurality of alternative automated processes for completing a particular activity, each respective automated process performable using a respective information technology infrastructure;
receiving, by the application, via the third user interface, a selection of the initial state from the plurality of initial state candidates; presenting, by the application, on the display of the device, a selectable graphical object representing an option to generate a business process model;
receiving, by the application from the user, a selection of the option to generate the business process model;
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a novel nor new technique nor technical solution for “presenting” and “receiving” information regardless of the type of information presented or received and regardless that such information is presented and received via generically described and claimed “on a display of the device, a plurality of first graphical user interfaces” etc... Furthermore, the intended use language regarding what is intended to be accomplished with received and presented information is either part of the abstract idea or purely non-functional descriptive material which provides context but does not provide insight into how the method steps of the identified abstract idea are intended to be accomplished. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts using generic computer components and link them to a field of use or are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data-gathering, receipt, transfer, and display) as pertains to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. a system comprising: a display device; and a processor; a memory adapted to store software instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute a set of operations [i.e. the method and abstract idea as noted supra]) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. business decision selection), or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 6 and 12 recite the following: “…wherein the business process model represents a process in a domain related to one of networking, security systems, datacenter technologies (cloud) computing, robotics, and information of things (loT) devices.” However, the intended field of use of the abstract idea is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and the breadth of the fields purportedly being included in the claim only lends to this finding.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are therefore patent ineligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
C Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 12,13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nag et al. (U.S. 2020/0065128 A1; hereinafter, "Nag") in view of Bharara et al. (U.S. 2013/0162796 A1; hereinafter, "Bharara").
Claims 1, 7, 13
Pertaining to claims 1, 7, 13 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Nag as shown teaches the following:
A method of generating a business process model defining an automated process performable using an information technology infrastructure to complete an activity, the method comprising:
presenting, by an application executing on a device, on a display of the device, a plurality of first graphical user interfaces (Nag, see at least [0059]-[0063] and [0078] teaching user may enter information defining state transition diagrams via a user interface; e.g..: “…User - specified reward functions may be specified in scripts , routines , or , in certain implementations , may be specified through a reward-function-construction user interface…”); Also, see at least Figs. 14A/B graphical representations of different portions of a state transition diagram displayed for a user; Examiner finds that Nag’s entire disclosure implies a user may input the expressions, e.g. Expression 1420, etc…, and Nag’s user-specified reward functions, etc… via user interfaces.);
receiving, via the plurality of first graphical user interfaces, from a user, first information defining a plurality of states, a plurality of transitions, and a plurality of relationships between the plurality of states and the plurality of transitions (Nag, again see citations noted supra, e.g. at least Figs. 14A-14B and [0078] in view of [0059]-[0063], e.g.: “… Expression 1430 [received first information] indicates that the probability of transitioning from state s1 to state s2 as a result of the environment carrying out action a1, where s indicates the current state of the environment and s' indicates the next state of the environment following s, is output by the state-transition function T, which takes, as arguments, indications of the initial state, the final state [defining a final state], and the action…”; Furthermore, Examiner notes that because user interfaces for state transition diagrams were well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, e.g. note the reference “A State Transition Diagram Language for Visual Programming” - R JACOB - IEEE Xplore. (1985) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1662976, and GUI were known to be ubiquitous mechanisms by which to communicate input and output commands within an computing environment, Examiner finds it to be within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used such a graphical user-interface, as already suggested may be used by Nag e.g. per [0078], to receive the information which he already does teach must be received to define his plurality of states, transitions, actions, relationships and state transition diagrams because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
generating, by the application, a state action graph (SAG) based on the plurality of states, the plurality of transitions, and the plurality of relationships (Nag, again see citations noted supra, e.g. at least Figs. 14A-14B and [0059]-[0063]. Figs. 14A and 14B are generated state transition diagrams [generated state action graphs]
PNG
media_image2.png
828
1130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
presenting, by the application, on the display of the device, a second graphical user interface that prompts the user to identify a final state from among the plurality of states (Nag, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0059]-[0063], e.g.: “…Expression 1430 indicates that the probability of transitioning from state s1 [initial state] to state s2 [final state] as a result of the environment carrying out action a1, where s indicates the current state of the environment and s' indicates the next state of the environment following s, is output by the state-transition function T, which takes, as arguments, indications of the initial state, the final state [received final state], and the action…”; Examiner finds that because function T is required to take arguments including “the final state” there is motivation given by Nag to prompt the user to enter this required information such that T may be fully defined. Therefore, whether explicitly stated, there is motivation provided by Nag for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prompt Nag’s user to identify such final state from the plurality of possible states, e.g. to provide expression 1430. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have presented, by Nag’s application, on the display of a user device, a second graphical user interface which prompts the user to identify Nag’s “final state” from among the plurality of states, e.g. from among states s1, s2, s3, etc…, to fully define expression 1430 because Nag teaches use of graphical user interfaces for specifying information related to his state transition diagrams, GUIs were ubiquitous before the time of filing, and their use was within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and therefore would have been obvious to use as a mechanism by which to facilitate Nag’s user specifying Expression 1430 because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
receiving, by the application via the second graphical user interface, second information defining a final state (Nag, again citations noted supra, e.g. at least Figs. 14A-14B and [0059]-[0062], e.g.: “… Expression 1430 indicates that the probability of transitioning from state s1 to state s2 as a result of the environment carrying out action a1, where s indicates the current state of the environment and s' indicates the next state of the environment following s, is output by the state-transition function T, which takes, as arguments, indications of the initial state, the final state [defining a final state], and the action…”);
determining, by the application, a plurality of initial state candidates based at least on the final state and the state action graph… wherein the plurality of initial state candidates and the final state define at least in part a plurality of alternative automated processes for completing a particular activity, each respective automated process performable using a respective information technology infrastructure (Nag, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0059]-[0062]: “…after a reasonable period of time, a reinforcement-learning-based application manager is able to learn near - optimal or optimal policy for the environment, such as a set of distributed applications, that it manages. In addition, in the case that the managed environment evolves over time , a reinforcement-learning-based application manager is able to continue to adjust the internally maintained policy in order to track evolution of the managed environment so that , at any given point in time, the internally maintained policy is near-optimal or optimal… The possible state transitions can be described by a state-transition diagram for the environment. FIG. 14A illustrates a portion of a state transition diagram. Each of the states in the portion of the state - transition diagram shown in FIG. 14A are represented by large, labeled disks, such as disc 1402 representing a particular state Sn. The transition between one state to another state occurs as a result of an action, emitted by the manager, that is carried out within the environment... Each possible sequence of state transitions is referred to as a “trajectory.” [path]…”; see also at least [0073] and Fig. 23. Examiner notes that the state transition diagram of Nag is a determination of all possible initial states which may reach a particular final state through the graph, according to the possible actions/events connecting the various state nodes. For example, State Sn+6 is an initial state candidate for final state Sn+2… and Sn+1 is also an initial state candidate for final state Sn+2, because final state Sn+2 is reachable via various paths from either Sn+1 or Sn+6. Applicant fails to stipulate any particular algorithm or mechanism for performing this generic determining and therefore Nag’s optimally selected path from any node to another through the given state transition diagram of Nag itself fulfills this step as claimed.);
presenting, by the application, on the display of the device, a third user interface that displays the plurality of initial state candidates and prompts the user to select an initial state (Nag, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0059]-[0063], e.g.: “…Expression 1430 indicates that the probability of transitioning from state s1 [initial state] to state s2 [final state] as a result of the environment carrying out action a1, where s indicates the current state of the environment and s' indicates the next state of the environment following s, is output by the state-transition function T, which takes, as arguments, indications of the initial state [selected initial state], the final state , and the action…”; Examiner finds that because function T is required to take arguments including “the initial state” there is motivation given by Nag to prompt the user to enter this required information such that T may be fully defined. Therefore, whether explicitly stated, there is motivation provided by Nag for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prompt Nag’s user to identify such initial state from the plurality of possible states, e.g. to provide expression 1430. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have presented, by Nag’s application, on the display of a user device, a third graphical user interface which prompts the user to identify Nag’s “initial state” from among the plurality of states, e.g. from among states s1, s2, s3, etc…, to fully define expression 1430 because Nag teaches use of graphical user interfaces for specifying information related to his state transition diagrams, GUIs were ubiquitous before the time of filing, and their use was within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and therefore would have been obvious to use as a mechanism by which to facilitate Nag’s user specifying Expression 1430 because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.); …receiving, by the application, via the third user interface, a selection of the initial state from the plurality of initial state candidates (Nag, again citations noted supra, e.g. at least Figs. 14A-14B and [0059]-[0062], e.g.: “… Expression 1430 indicates that the probability of transitioning from state s1 [initial] to state s2 [final state] as a result of the environment carrying out action a1, where s indicates the current state of the environment and s' indicates the next state of the environment following s, is output by the state-transition function T, which takes, as arguments, indications of the initial state [received selection of initial state], the final state, and the action…”);
[…]
generating, by the application, the business process model based at least one the state action graph, the final state, and the selected initial state; wherein the business process model defines an automated process that is performable using a corresponding information technology infrastructure to complete the particular activity (Nag, see citations noted supra, further in view of at least Figs. 16-18 and [0064]-[0068], e.g.: “…FIG. 18 provides a somewhat more detailed control-flow-like description of operation of the manager and
environment than originally provided in FIG. 16A. The control-flow-like presentation corresponds to a run of the manager and environment that continues until a termination condition evaluates to TRUE . In addition to the previously discussed sets and functions, this model [generated business process model based on the state action graph] includes a state transition function Tr 1802 , an observation - generation function Out 1804, a value function V 1806, update functions Uv 1808, Upi 1810, and Ub 1812 that update the value function, policy, and belief distribution, respectively, an update variable u 1814 that indicates whether to update the value function, policy, or both, and a termination condition 1816… In step 1826, the manager generates a new action [defines an automated process that is performable using corresponding IT infrastructure] and, in step 1828, updates the update variable u and issues the generated action to the environment [completes the particular activity].”
Although Nag teaches the above limitations, Nag may not explicitly teach the following nuances. However, regarding these features, Nag in view of Bharara teaches the following:
presenting, by the application, on the display of the device, a selectable graphical object
representing an option to generate a business process model; receiving, by the application from the user, a selection of the option to generate the business process model; responsive to the selection of the option to generate the business process model: generating, by the application, the business process model (Bharara, see at least Fig. 7B and [0088], e.g.: “…FIG. 7B is a flow-chart showing the image-animation routine. The flow-chart begins (E) after the user selects the model-generation option on the apparatus touch-screen (S528). The system loads the patient visit database (S624), and the user selects and loads the desired patient visits (S626). The user then selects the range of visits for the analysis (S628). The system loads the images of the selected visits (S630). The user is then given the option of selecting the desired animation parameters (S632) from a preset selection menu (S634), which includes, but is not limited to, the following animation routines: animation of the visual images, animation of the thermal image, or animation of the registered images…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Bharara (directed towards providing a model-generation option on the touch-screen of a user device/apparatus, where his system loads a business process model in response to the user selecting such model-generation option, including loading patient visit database, and allowing the user to further select the range of visits for the model analysis and then provides the user with an option of selecting the desired animation parameters for the model from a preset selection menu, etc…) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Nag (as shown supra, is already directed towards enabling a user to specify parameters of state action diagrams representing an environment [business process environment], via a user interface, e.g. to provide inputs such as to specify Expression 1430 which indicates parameters such as probability of transitioning from state s1 to state s2 as a result of the environment carrying out action a1, where s indicates the current state of the environment and s’ indicates the next state of the environment following s, is output by the state-transition function T, which takes, as arguments, indications of the initial state, the final state, and the action, etc… from which his system, through at least reinforcement learning, generates optimal paths [generated optimal business process model] from a selected initial environment state to a desired final state) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Bharara to the device/method of Nag in order to perform the limitation in question such that Nag’s user is also provided such a user interface by which to present his user a selectable graphical object representing an option to generate this optimal path [ business process model], then receiving, by Nag’s application from the user, a selection of the option to generate such optimal path [i.e. the business process model], and responsive to the selection of the option to generate the optimal path [business process model], actual generate, by the application, the optimal path [business process model] through Nag’s business process environment represented by his state action diagram (e.g. Fig. 14A/B) because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 6, 12, 18
Nag/Bharara, teach the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Nag in view of Neogi as shown teaches the following:
…wherein the business process model represents a process in a domain related to one of networking, security systems, datacenter technologies (cloud) computing, robotics, and information of things (loT) devices (Nag, see citations noted supra, including at least Abstract, Figs. 1-5 and related disclosures teaching, the environment modeled and controlled may be various different “computational environments” [a process in a domain related to all of applicant’s stated processes] and which the modular reinforcement-learning-based application manager may be operated to control; e.g. as shown per FIG . 3 the environment may be a cloud computing environment, etc… and FIGS. 5A - B illustrate two types of virtual machine and virtual - machine execution environments, etc…)
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nag in view of Bharara further in view of Natasha Anita Neogi (Hazard Elimination Using Backwards Reachability Techniques in Discrete and Hybrid Models by Natasha Anita Neogi, M.Phil. Honours, Theoretical Physics Cambridge University, 1997 Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY December 3rd, 2001; hereinafter Neogi).
Claims 2, 8, 14
Although Nag/Bharara, teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly in a single embodiment teach the below nuance of using backward reachability analysis to find initial state candidates from a given analyzed final state. However, regarding these features, Nag in view of Neogi as shown teaches the following:
wherein determining the plurality of initial state candidates based at least on the final state and the state action graph comprises: defining a first set of first initial state candidates by: starting at the final state, traversing the SAG to generate a plurality of first initial state candidates; and including the plurality of first initial state candidates in the first set of initial state candidates; defining a second set of second initial state candidates by: identifying a plurality of states in the SAG; and for each state in the plurality of states: identifying one or more state variables associated with the state and a predetermined state value for each variable, thereby defining a set of predetermined state values; determining an actual value for each variable, thereby defining a set of actual values; and including the state in the second set of second initial state candidates, if the set of actual values is the same as the set of predetermined state values; and defining a third set of third initial state candidates to include states that are present in both the first set of first initial state candidates and in the second set of second initial state candidates; presenting the third set of third initial state candidates to the user; receiving from the user a selection of one of the third initial state candidates; and defining the initial state to be the selected one of the third initial state candidates (Neogi, per her thesis at MIT in 2001 teaches a system and method using backwards reachability techniques [i.e. determining the plurality of initial state candidates based at least on the final state and the state action graph] in discrete and hybrid models such as those represented by state transition diagrams of Nag. For example, Neogi, e.g. per [pg. 99], notes the disclosed techniques of generating backwards states [prior / initial states] from the hazardous state [an analyzed final state] in order to determine the first escape path is developed using the Leveson-Stolzy algorithm... A Hazard Automaton Reduction Algorithm is developed from the Leveson-Stolzy algorithm by implementing modifications which allow the concepts of Leveson-Stolzy to be efficiently applied to automata state machines. The formal definition of the Hazard Automaton Reduction Algorithm along with several of its properties and their proofs are detailed in depth in [chapter 5]. Examiner notes, this Hazard Automaton Reduction Algorithm looks for prior initial states which have specified [defined] set of predetermined state values. These sets of backwards states may be aggregated [defining a third set of third initial state candidates to include states that are present in both the first set of first initial state candidates and in the second set of second initial state candidates] to find a set of states [initial states] for which a process should be designed to never reach such that it does not transition to an unwanted final hazardous state. The objective, as described per [pg. 103-104] is to find and eliminate certain particular states which have predetermined state values; e.g.: “…One possible solution defines and uses a type of state called a critical state… a critical state is a low risk state from which it is possible to reach both a hazardous state and a low risk state. Thus, if a hazardous state is reachable, there must be a critical state on the path from the initial state to the hazardous state (including the possibility that the critical state is the initial state, as long as the initial state is low risk). Otherwise, the design needs to be completely redone since all executions result in hazardous states. To ensure that a particular hazardous state can never be reached, it is possible to simply work backwards to the first critical state and to use design techniques to ensure the bad path is never taken. This technique is conservative, because in order to reduce the large amount of computing to produce the entire reachability graph, hazardous states may be eliminated that in reality may not have been reachable…”; therefore, Examiner finds the complete teachings of Neogi’s thesis provide motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the steps as now claimed).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Neogi which is applicable to a known base device/method of Nag to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Neogi to the device/method of Nag in order to perform the limitation in question because Neogi’s teachings are pertinent to the optimal path state transition diagram traversal of Nag and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 3, 9, 15
Nag/Bharara/Neogi, teach the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Nag in view of Neogi teaches the following:
…further comprising: retrieving a set of context variables and corresponding set of context variable values; identifying a plurality of paths between the initial state and the final state; and defining a set of candidate paths between the initial state and the final state by repeatedly performing a series of first operations including: selecting one of the paths from the plurality of paths; and repeatedly performing, for each state-transition pair in the selected path, a series of second operations including: selecting a state-transition pair in the selected path, wherein the transition of the state-transition pair is associated with one or more condition variables, and one or more predetermined condition values each corresponding to a respective one of the one or more condition variables, an action, and a post-condition; determining whether the set of context variables includes the set of condition variables and whether the set of context variable values is the same as the set of predetermined condition values; and if the set of context variables includes the set of condition variables and the set of context variable values is the same as the set of predetermined condition values, performing a series of third operations including: performing the action; updating the set of context variables and the set of context variable values based on the post-condition associated with the transition; and including the selected path to the set of candidate paths, if performing the action results in the final state (Nag, see citations noted supra, e.g. see at least Figs. 15-20 and [0059]-[0070], regarding various flow diagrams for the universe comprising the manager and the environment in different approaches to reinforcement learning. Specifically, note at least [0064] regarding Figs. 16A-B in one simple flow diagram for the universe comprising the manager and the environment in
one approach to reinforcement learning. Applicant’s steps as claimed are generic and high-level descriptions of various flows occurring in reinforcement learning algorithms which are obvious in view of the teachings of Nag. For example, Nag teaches per the aforementioned noted passages: “…The manager 1602 internally maintains a policy , 1604 and a belief distribution b 1606 and is aware of the set of environment states S 1608, the set of possible actions A 1610 , the state – transition function T 1612 , the set of possible observations omega 1614 and , and the observation - probability function O 1616 , all discussed above . The environment 1604 shares knowledge of the sets S , A , and omega and the functions T and O with the manager , but maintains the current state of the environment s 1620 , a reward function R 1622 that returns a reward r in response to an input current state s and an input action a received while in the current state 1624 , and a discount parameter y 1626 , discussed below . The manager is initialized with an initial policy and belief distribution . The manager emits a next action 1630 based on the current belief distribution which the environment then carries out , resulting in the environment occupying a resultant state and then issues a reward 1624 and an observation o 1632 based on the resultant state and the received action . The manager receives the reward and observation , generally updates the internally stored policy and belief distribution , and then issues next action , in response to which the environment transitions to a resultant state and emits a next reward and observation. This cycle continues indefinitely or until a termination condition arises [e.g. if performing the action results in the final state ] . …”).
Claims 4, 10, 16
Nag/Bharara/Neogi, teach the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Nag in view of Neogi teaches the following:
…further comprising: generating a plurality of Q-values in a Q-table, wherein each Q-value represents a reward value for a state-transition pair in the SAG; selecting a path from among the set of candidate paths based on the Q-values in the Q-table; presenting the selected path to the user; receiving from the user an acceptance of the selected path or a rejection of the path; and if an acceptance of the selected path is received from the user, increasing at least one Q-value associated with at least one state-transition pair in the selected path (Nag, see at least citations already noted supra, e.g. per [0059] teaching: “…In addition to receiving observation vectors o, the reinforcement - learning - based application manager receives rewards [Q-values], as indicated by arrow 1220. Each reward [Q-value] is a numeric value that represents the feedback provided by the computational environment to the reinforcement-learning-based application manager after carrying out the most recent action issued by the manager and transitioning to a resultant state, as further discussed below…
…The received observations provide the information regarding the managed environment that allows the reinforcement-learning-based application manager to infer the current state of the environment which, in turn, allows the reinforcement - learning - based application manager to issue actions that push the managed environment towards states that, over time, produce [select] the greatest reward [path having highest Q-value] feedbacks…”; see also at least [0067]).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record although not relied upon as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
A State Transition Diagram Language for Visual Programming - R JACOB - IEEE Xplore. (1985) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1662976; accessed July 25, 2026.
This reference is of particular interest and the applicant’s recited claims cannot be considered novel in view of this reference and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Florian Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights