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 . Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 20240283639) in view of Nguyen (US 20250384101).
Claim 1
Thompson discloses:
A system comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: {“Some arrangements relate to a response system for modeling plurality of protection parameters or application of a third-party, the response system including one or more processing circuits including memory and at least one processor configured to identify a plurality of first level configurations corresponding to at least one of an operational or security action performed on the a plurality of computing systems of an entity of a plurality of entities.” [0003]}
receive an encrypted structured operation log from a user computer device via a secure communication path, wherein the encrypted structured operation log comprises a plurality of event records generated by a monitoring agent executing on the user computer device using an operating-system application programming interface, each event record including a timestamp, an application identifier, and contextual data associated with an operation event indicating at least one of an application launch, a file operation, a window switch, a menu selection, or a text-input event, and the plurality of event records representing a time-ordered sequence of the operation events, {The system supports receiving encrypted, structured event logs from a user computer over a secure TLS/HTTPS communication path, where a client side library interfacing with operating system software automatically monitors and transmit application events, including an application being opened, records the events with timestamps, ad maintains them in chronological order. [0058], [0066], [0071], [0075] – [0078], [0367]}
decrypt the encrypted structured operation log to obtain a decrypted structured operation log, {The system supports accessing encrypted data using a key and decrypting the package before applying the recovered information. [0395] – [0397]}
preprocess the plurality of event records into feature vectors, {Modeler 2508 includes a preprocessing layer and a feature engineering layer for incident data before model training and analysis. [0340]}
Thompson does not disclose, however, Nguyen, in a similar field of endeavor directed to generating personalized user interface workflows, teaches:
train a domain-specific generation model comprising a generative artificial intelligence model using the decrypted structured operation log as training data, {A generative AI model can be trained for the service using, among other things, behavioral activity of users. [0097]}
construct a prompt sentence describing the repetitive operation pattern and associated task context, {The system extracts historical user activity, including frequently used elements, and elements, and submits a custom prompt to the LLM, and elsewhere submits prompts containing predicted user needs, contextual information, and available UI elements. [0018] – [0019], [0046]}
input the prompt sentence to the trained generation model to obtain automation proposal information specifying an executable automation script or configuration for performing the repetitive operation pattern, {The system inputs custom prompts into an LLM to obtain recommendations describing UI elements, API connections, page arrangements, and standardized JSON output usable by programmatic frameworks. Language models may generate program code. [0018] – [0019], [0048], [0052], [0065]}
transmit the automation proposal information to the user computer device for presentation to a user and receive an approval of the automation proposal information, and {The generated workflow is submitted to an external monitor for review and approval, where the generated workflow is displayed and the supervising user provides revisions, approval, or denial. [0020], [0084] – [0086]}
execute the executable automation script or configuration to perform the repetitive operation pattern on the user computer device independently of further user operation in response to the approval. {Upon approval, the system automatically publishes the generated custom interface workflow onto the target application in real time, and elsewhere automatically publishes updated workflows. [0086], [0090]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the event monitoring and logging features of Thompson to include the user activity analysis and automated workflow generation features of Nguyen, to improve user interaction with digital applications. (See [0022] of Nguyen).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thompson and Nguyen in further view of Alvarez (US 20180349812).
Claim 2
While the combination of Thompson and Nguyen teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Alvarez, in a similar field of endeavor directed to data processing and data-management systems, teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to update the generation model based on user feedback. {The system supports receiving user inputs, comments, and validations through generated forms and writing those inputs back to underlying data objects. [0053], [0057]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thompson and Nguyen to include the generation of complex integrated development environments for domain-specific processes of Alvarez, to improve the classical business application development practices where requirements are typically passed on to developers that create the application. (See [0003] of Alvarez).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thompson and Nguyen in further view of Sheldon (US 20250341809).
Claim 4
While the combination of Thompson and Nguyen teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Sheldon, in a similar field of endeavor directed to action and/or process determination and recommendations for robotic process automation (RPA) using semantic action graphs, teaches:
receive, from the user computer device, an execution log indicating a result of executing the executable automation script or configuration and user feedback regarding the automation proposal information or the result, and {The conductor provides monitoring and logging of robot execution, logs robot messages and errors, and analytics monitor the performance of the performance of deployed automations, including errors and anomalies. The system obtains user feedback regarding model predictions and automation operation. [0057], [0073], [0097]}
retrain the generative artificial intelligence model using the execution log and the user feedback. {The platform measures automation performance, obtains feedback, and trains AI models. Human corrections are stored as training data for retraining generative AI models. [0057], [0063]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thompson and Nguyen to include the automation monitoring, feedback, and model retraining features of Sheldon, to improve the effectiveness and performance of automated processes. (See [0063] of Sheldon).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thompson and Nguyen in further view of Bernardi (US 20240185191).
Claim 5
While the combination of Thompson and Nguyen teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Bernardi, in a similar field of endeavor directed to providing a Web3 Decentralized Blockchain Based Secure NET Framework, teaches:
wherein the encrypted structured operation log is encrypted at the user computer device using an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm, and the secure communication path comprises a Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) connection employing Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption that authenticates both the user computer device and the processor. {The system supports encrypting data at user side application using AES-256 before transmission, securing communications using HTTPS employing TLS encryption and certificate authentication, and mutually authenticating the communicating sender and recipient through verification of each other’s certificates. [0297], [0547], [0564]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thompson and Nguyen to include the data security and authentication features of Bernardi, to improve communication security such as confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity through certificates. (See [0547] of Bernardi).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Arguments are moot under 35 USC §101 in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights