IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,725,111
Granted Patent B2
US 12,725,111 · App. 18/463,153 · Granted Sep 1, 2026

Modeling and structuring system for processing business process modeling notations

Inventors: Dennis Brons (Eindhoven/North-Brabant, NL); Roeland Scheepens (Eindhoven/North-Brabant, NL); Cristina Avram (Bucharest, RO)
Assignee: UiPath, Inc.
G06Q10/067
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 12,725,111
App. No.
18/463,153
Granted
Sep 1, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

A method for translating an unstructured existing process into a well-structured process model is provided. The method is executed by a generation engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment. The method includes analyzing elements or relationships of the unstructured existing process to detect model violations. The model violations include when the elements or the relationships fail at least one model requirement. The method include generating feedback suggestion types corresponding to the model violations and providing the feedback suggestion types in a user interface to automatically resolve the model violations.

Claims (26)

1 . A hyper-automation method for translating an unstructured existing process into a well-structured process model, the hyper-automation method being executed by a generation engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment, the generation engine performs the hyper-automation method with one or more robotic process automations to automatically resolve one or more model violations of the unstructured existing process, the method comprising:

receiving, by the generation engine to initiate the hyper-automation method, the unstructured existing process;

analyzing one or more elements or one or more relationships of the unstructured existing process to detect the one or more model violations comprising when the one or more elements or the one or more relationships fail at least one model requirement, by applying a first set of rules to determine whether at least one of the one or more elements are in isolation and applying a second set of rules to determine one or more structural properties of the one or more relationships,

wherein the one or more violations include at least one of the one or more structural properties does not have a single entrance or a single exit;

generating one or more feedback suggestion types corresponding to the one or more model violations;

providing the one or more feedback suggestion types in a user interface to automatically resolve the one or more model violations; and

selecting a suggestion of the one or more feedback suggestion types by the one or more robotic process automations,

wherein the one or more feedback suggestion types comprise highlighted feedback type identifying the one or more model violations,

wherein the unstructured existing process comprises one or more supported nodes representing one or more elements or one or more relationships of the unstructured existing process,

wherein the one or more supported nodes comprising task, start, end, XOR gateway, or AND gateway task nodes.

2 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one model requirement comprises a structural requirement further comprising:

requiring a corresponding join gateway of a same type for each split gateway; or

requiring a corresponding split gateway of a same type for each join gateway.

3 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one model requirement comprises a structural requirement further comprising requiring a single entry edge and a single exit edge for each pair of corresponding split and join gateways.

4 . The hyper-automation method of claim 3 , wherein each pair of the corresponding split and join gateways share elements between the gateways.

5 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one model requirement comprises one or more element requirements.

6 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the detecting of one or more model violations comprises detecting one or more rigid components.

7 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more feedback suggestion types comprise a textual feedback type containing textual information.

8 . The hyper-automation method of claim 7 , wherein the textual information is presented with at least one of a plurality of images.

9 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more feedback suggestion types comprise a suggestive feedback type or an alternative feedback type prompting the automatic resolving the one or more model violations.

10 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more violations are translated within the one or more feedback suggestion types into valid elements.

11 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more violations comprise the unstructured existing process failing to comprise a split gateway.

12 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more violations comprise the unstructured existing process failing to comprise a split-join gateway pair.

13 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more violations comprise the unstructured existing process failing to comprise a single-entry-single-exit.

14 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more robotic process automations orchestrate human tasks as robot tasks.

15 . The hyper-automation method of claim 1 , wherein the unstructured existing process comprising non-standardized information with unstructured process definitions.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 11, 2023
From: BRONS, DENNIS; SCHEEPENS, ROELAND; AVRAM, CRISTINA
To: UIPATH, INC.
Reel/Frame 064864/0196 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20250086564A1 · Mar 13, 2025
References Cited (25)
US 7493593B2 · Koehler · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 8126692B2 · Arnold et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8539003B2 · Tsyganskiy · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 9983559B2 · Blevins et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10960541B2 · Mihir et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11379781B2 · Gottemukkala · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20070198312A1 · Bagchi · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20090113394A1 · Weber et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090150860A1 · Gschwind et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090281865A1 · Stoitsev · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20110144775A1 · Killisperger et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120066662A1 · Chao et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130124927A1 · Balko · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20130238386A1 · Das · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20180218295A1 · Hasija · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20220100171A1 · Miller · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220197947A1 · Scheepens · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20230168654A1 · Munteanu et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230267396A1 · Gupta et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
CN 113034095B · 2022 [cited by applicant]
Hoffmann, et al., “On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models,” Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 14, No. 2, May 23, 2009 (23 pages). [cited by applicant]
Roy, et al., “Modeling Industrial Business Processes for Querying and Retrieving Using OWL+ SWRL,” (Oct. 18, 2018) 18th International Conference, Austin, TX, US (Sep. 24-27, 2015), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (21 pages… [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report received in EP Application No. 24198898.9, dated Jan. 23, 2025 (7 pages). [cited by applicant]
Awad, et al., “Towards Resolving Compliance Violations in Business Process Models, Business Process Technology Group, Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of Potsdam,” Potsdam, Germany D-14482, 15 pages. [cited by applicant]
Gambini, et al., “Automated Error Correction of Business Process Models,” Business process management : 9th international conference, BPM 2011, Clermont-Ferand, France, Aug. 30-Sep. 2, 2011 : proceedings, pp. 148-165. [cited by applicant]