IP Library Granted Patent US 12,235,885
Granted Patent B2
US 12,235,885 · App. 17/410,876 · Granted Feb 25, 2025

Dynamic process model optimization in domains

Inventors: Sudipto Shankar Dasgupta (Sunnyvale, CA); Michael Reh (Schriesheim, DE)
Assignee: Zuora, Inc.
G06F16/353G06F16/316G06N3/042G06N3/044G06N3/045G06N3/08G06N5/025
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,235,885
App. No.
17/410,876
Granted
Feb 25, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A computing server may receive master data, transaction data, and one or more existing process models of a domain. The computing server may aggregate, based on domain knowledge ontology of the domain, the master data and the transaction data to generate a fact table. For example, entries in the fact table may be identified as relevant to the target process model and include attributes and facts that are extracted from master data or transaction data. The computing server may convert the entries in the fact table into vectors. The computing server inputting vectors into one or more machine learning algorithms to generate one or more algorithm outputs. One or more algorithm outputs may correspond to one or more improved process models that are optimized compared to the existing process models. The computing server may provide the improved process model to the domain to replace one of the existing process models.

Claims (52)

1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

receiving master data, transaction data, and one or more existing process models of a domain;

aggregating, based on domain knowledge ontology of the domain, the master data and the transaction data to generate a fact table;

converting entries in the fact table into vectors;

inputting the vectors into one or more machine learning algorithms to generate one or more algorithm outputs, at least one of the algorithm outputs corresponding to an improved process model, wherein the inputting the vectors into the one or more machine learning algorithms to generate the one or more algorithm outputs comprises:

inputting the vectors into a particular machine learning algorithm to generate one or more event sequences that comprise a plurality of events, and

filtering the one or more event sequences to identify an association with a particular action; and

providing the improved process model to the domain to replace one of the one or more existing process models.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein aggregating, based on the domain knowledge ontology of the domain, the master data and the transaction data to generate the fact table comprises:

deriving relationships of entities in the master data and the transaction data based on the domain knowledge ontology of the domain;

converting the relationships of the entities into serialization entries.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , wherein the serialization entries are in a resource description framework format.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

enriching the improved process model with the domain knowledge ontology.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the master data and the transaction data are received from an enterprise resource planning application of the domain, and the improved process model is fed back to the enterprise resource planning application.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein one or more improvements in the improved process model is generated based on one or more performance indicators.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the entries in the fact table are scaled by feature scaling prior to converting into the vectors.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the machine learning algorithm is one of: a convolutional neural network, a recurrent neural network, or a long short term memory network.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein filtering the event sequences is based on a conditional random field.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

receiving a manual action that is inputted to improve one of the existing process models; and

inputting the manual action into the one or more machine learning algorithms.

11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10 , wherein receiving the manual action comprises:

displaying at least one of the existing process models as a process map visualization that includes a series of events; and

receiving a selection associated with one of the events from a user as the manual action.

12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 , wherein the selection is a selection of a target performance indicator associated with the one of the events.

13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

receiving one or more human corrections to the improved process model; and

adjusting the improved process model based on the one or more human corrections.

14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13 , wherein the human corrections are used to reinforce the one or more machine learning algorithms.

15. A system comprising:

one or more processors; and

memory configured to store computer code comprising instructions, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processor to:

receive master data, transaction data, and one or more existing process models of a domain;

aggregate, based on domain knowledge ontology of the domain, the master data and the transaction data to generate a fact table;

convert entries in the fact table into vectors;

input the vectors into one or more machine learning algorithms to generate one or more algorithm outputs, at least one of the algorithm outputs corresponding to an improved process model, wherein the instruction to input the vectors into the one or more machine learning algorithms to generate the one or more algorithm outputs comprises instructions to:

input the vectors into a particular machine learning algorithm to generate one or more event sequences that comprise a plurality of events, and

filter the one or more event sequences to identify an association with a particular action; and

provide the improved process model to the domain to replace one of the one or more existing process models.

16. The system of claim 15 , wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:

enrich the improved process model with the domain knowledge ontology.

17. The system of claim 15 , wherein the master data and the transaction data are received from an enterprise resource planning application of the domain, and the improved process model is fed back to the enterprise resource planning application.

18. A non-transitory computer readable medium for storing computer code comprising instructions, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:

receive master data, transaction data, and one or more existing process models of a domain;

aggregate, based on domain knowledge ontology of the domain, the master data and the transaction data to generate a fact table;

convert entries in the fact table into vectors;

input the vectors into one or more machine learning algorithms to generate one or more algorithm outputs, at least one of the algorithm outputs corresponding to an improved process model, wherein the instruction to input of the vectors into the one or more machine learning algorithms to generate the one or more algorithm outputs comprises instructions to:

input the vectors into a particular machine learning algorithm to generate one or more event sequences that comprise a plurality of events, and

filter the one or more event sequences to identify an association with a particular action; and

provide the improved process model to the domain to replace one of the one or more existing process models.

19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18 , wherein the master data and the transaction data are received from an enterprise resource planning application of the domain, and the improved process model is fed back to the enterprise resource planning application.

Assignments (4)
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Feb 14, 2025
From: ZUORA, INC.
To: ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 070236/0918 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 3, 2021
From: DASGUPTA, SUDIPTO SHANKAR; REH, MICHAEL
To: LIVE OBJECTS, INC.
Reel/Frame 057382/0415 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 3, 2021
From: MODERNAIZE, INC.
To: ZUORA, INC.
Reel/Frame 057383/0103 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Sep 3, 2021
From: LIVE OBJECTS, INC.
To: MODERNAIZE, INC.
Reel/Frame 057426/0130 →
Priority Claims (1)
IN 201941005513 · Feb 12, 2019 · national
Continuity (5)
Continuation 16886504 · May 28, 2020
Continuation In Part PCTUS2020016838 · Feb 5, 2020
Continuation 16540530 · Aug 14, 2019
Provisional Application 63004928 · Apr 3, 2020
Related Publication 20210406297A1 · Dec 30, 2021
References Cited (75)
US 5182794A · Gasperi et al. · 1993 [cited by applicant]
US 5890133A · Ernst · 1999 [cited by applicant]
US 6763353B2 · Li et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 7120896B2 · Budhiraja et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7162458B1 · Flanagan et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7480640B1 · Elad et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 8036907B2 · Davies et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8166013B2 · Bandaru et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8631048B1 · Davis et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9176951B2 · Patrudu · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9535902B1 · Michalak et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9672497B1 · Lewis et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10157347B1 · Kasturi et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10176245B2 · Lim et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10311442B1 · Lancaster · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10438013B2 · Jacob et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10607042B1 · Dasgupta et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10851636B1 · Basu et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10877979B2 · Costabello et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10949455B2 · Reh et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11100153B2 · Dasgupta · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20040210552A1 · Friedman et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20090281845A1 · Fukuda et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20110161333A1 · Langseth et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20130096947A1 · Shah et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130311446A1 · Clifford et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140058789A1 · Doehring et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150058337A1 · Gordon et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150106078A1 · Chang · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150296395A1 · Vaderna et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160140236A1 · Estes · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160247087A1 · Nassar et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160253364A1 · Gomadam et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170109657A1 · Marcu et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180032861A1 · Oliner et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180082197A1 · Aravamudan et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180137424A1 · Royval et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180146000A1 · Muddu et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180219889A1 · Oliner et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180232443A1 · Delgo et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180253653A1 · Ozcan et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180322283A1 · Puri et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190018904A1 · Russell et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190102430A1 · Wang et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190303441A1 · Bacarella et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200097545A1 · Chatterjee et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200142989A1 · Bordawekar et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
Edouard, Amosse, “Event Detection and Analysis on Short Text Messages”, retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01679673/document>, retrieved on Sep. 29, 2022, Oct. 2, 2017 (Oct. 2, 2017)… [cited by applicant]
Jlailaty, Diana, et al., “Multi-Level Clustering for Extracting Process-Related Information from Email Logs”, 2017 11th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), IEEE, DOI: 10.1109/R… [cited by applicant]
Agrawal, R., et al., “Mining Process Models from Workflow Logs”, International Conference on Extending Database Technology, Jan. 22, 1998, pp. 1-21. [cited by applicant]
Bhaskaran, S. K., et al., “Neural Networks and Conditional Random Fields Based Approach for Effective Question Processing”, Procedia Computer Science, vol. 143, 2018, pp. 211-218. [cited by applicant]
Bowman, J. S., et al. ,“The Practical SQL Handbook: Using Structured Query Language”, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Oct. 1996, 4 pages (with cover page and table of contents). [cited by applicant]
Chen, D., et al., “A Fast and Accurate Dependency Parser using Neural Networks”, Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Oct. 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, pp. 740-750. [cited by applicant]
Dijkman, R. M., et al., “Semantics and Analysis of Business Process Models in BPMN”, Information and Software Technology, vol. 50, 2008, pp. 1281-1294. [cited by applicant]
Ertam, F., et al., “Data Classification with Deep Learning Using Tensorflow”, International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK), IEEE, 2017, pp. 755-758. [cited by applicant]
Hochreiter, S., et al, “Long Short-Term Memory”, Neural Computation, vol. 9, Issue 8, Nov. 15, 1997, pp. 1735-1780. [cited by applicant]
Hua, Y., et al., “Deep Learning with Long Short-Term Memory for Time Series Prediction”, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1810.10161, No. 1, Oct. 24, 2018, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Jie, Z., et al., “Efficient Dependency-Guided Named Entity Recognition”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08436, No. 2, Oct. 22, 2018, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Juszczak, P., et al., “Feature Scaling in Support Vector Data Description”, Proc. Asci. Citeseer, 2002, pp. 95-102. [cited by applicant]
Kiperwasser, E., et al., “Simple and Accurate Dependency Parsing Using Bidirectional LSTM Feature Representations”, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 4, Jul. 2016, pp. 313-327. [cited by applicant]
Lafferty, J., et al., “Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Machine Learning, Jun. 28, 2001, pp. 282-289. [cited by applicant]
Lipton, Z., et al., “A Critical Review of Recurrent Neural Networks for Sequence Learning”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.00019, Jun. 5, 2015, 38 pages. [cited by applicant]
Miller, E., “An Introduction to the Resource Description Framework”, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, Oct./Nov. 1998, pp. 15-19. [cited by applicant]
Pennington, J., et al., “Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation”, Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Oct. 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, pp. 1532-1543. [cited by applicant]
Rubin, V., et al., “Process Mining Framework for Software Processes”, International Conference on Software Process, May 2007, 21 pages. [cited by applicant]
Seber, G., et al., “Linear Regression Analysis”, John Wiley & Sons, 2003, 13 pages (with cover page and table of contents). [cited by applicant]
Steinbach, M., et al., “A Comparison of Document Clustering Techniques”, KDD Workshop on Text Mining, Aug. 20-23, 2000, 20 pages. [cited by applicant]
Van Der Aalst, W. et al., “ProM: The Process Mining Toolkit,” Proceedings of the Business Process Management Demonstration Track (BPMDemos 2009), Sep. 8, 2009, 49 pages, Ulm, Germany. [cited by applicant]
Von Rosing, M., et al., “Business Process Model and Notation—BPMN”, 2015, pp. 429-453. [cited by applicant]
Wang, P., et al., “Semantic Expansion Using Word Embedding Clustering and Convolutional Neural Network for Improving Short Text Classification”, Neurocomputing, vol. 174, 2016, pp. 806-814. [cited by applicant]
Zeileis, A., et al., “Diagnostic Checking in Regression Relationships”, R News, vol. 2/3, Dec. 2002, 5 pages. [cited by applicant]
Zou, K., et al., “Correlation and Simple Linear Regression”, Radiology, vol. 227, No. 3, Jun. 2003, pp. 617-622. [cited by applicant]
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT Application No. PCT/US2020/016838, Jun. 4, 2020, 28 pages. [cited by applicant]
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT Application No. PCT/US2020/016834, Apr. 30, 2020, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
United States Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 16/886,523, filed Sep. 24, 2020, 13 pages. [cited by applicant]