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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 4/9/2026.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 10 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to Claims 1 and 10, it is unclear how the cloud infrastructure and/or the electronic computing device in cloud infrastructure builds network and server hardware, as this implies that the cloud (or computing device) is building or constructing the physical hardware components. Examiner has consulted the specification and the closest material appears to be the building of network and server hardware configurations required for implementation (for example, see specification at page 20). For further consideration of the merits, it will be assumed that the building, realizing, and/or operating steps are drawn to the configurations (or similar designing, planning, etc.) of the hardware and not the hardware itself. Applicant should correct and/or clarify the claim language.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1) and/or system (Claim 10), thus Claims 1 and 10 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1 and 10 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
creating, by the electronic computing device, an operational interface and displaying the operational interface to allow a user to interact with the business model1;
receiving from the user via the operational interface, a plurality of elements;
storing, by the electronic computing device on data storage systems or devices, as sets of triples in a semantic graph triplestore database, the plurality of elements, the plurality of elements comprising:
data on entities that participate in the business, the entities that participate in the business comprising business users, partners, suppliers, and participants in value chains/networks;
data on activities that are performed by users or applications, the activities comprising any one or more of an arbitrarily complex business process, a value chain definition, a resource definition, a capability definition as sets of manual or automated activities and activities create and consume information;
data on assets of the business2, comprising applications and algorithms, the assets comprising physical and digital assets and the digital assets provide automation to the business model through technology and comprise applications used to deliver the activities, wherein the application assets are linked with activities and information; and
algorithms that are linked with information; and
information to be accessed and processed by activities and assets, the information having constraints which restrict the structure and meaning of information and wherein the constraints are stored as information;
receiving and storing on data storage systems or devices links3, by the electronic computing device, between the elements;
creating, by the electronic computing device, an ontology of the elements and links representative of the business model as sets of triples;
storing, by the electronic computing device on data storage systems or devices, the sets of triples in the semantic graph triplestore database;
creating, by the electronic computing device, from the sets of triples, a plurality of schema representative of the business model, the plurality of schema comprising:
an information schema that describes the information that flows through the activities;
a constraints schema;
a workflow schema representative of the activities;
an application schema representative of the applications; and
an algorithm schema representative of business rules;
an environment schema;
an integration schema;
storing, by the electronic computing device on data storage systems or devices, the plurality of schema;
creating, on the electronic computing device, an activity workflow from the workflow schema;
creating, by the electronic computing device, application integrations using the information and application schemas;
creating, by the electronic computing device, a plurality of algorithms from the algorithm schema for the operation of the business model, wherein the algorithms provide user defined business rules to the business model through consumption, computation according to defined rules and resulting output of new information;
creating, by the electronic computing device, a declarative specification of these schema via deployment of hardware and software configurations;
building by the electronic computing device in cloud infrastructure, network and server hardware [configurations] required to operate the business model;
realizing, via the electronic computing device, this specification through deployment on the built network and server hardware [configurations]; and
operating the business using the built network and server hardware [configurations] in accordance with the business model.
1 Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the business model represents a plan (set of business rules, etc.) for which the created schemas, workflows, algorithms, programs, etc. are used to implement/perform the model. The business model is not a machine learning model, artificial intelligent model, or other related concept (AI). It is merely a business model for operating the business and the claims merely recite a manner for implementing or performing that business model. See Applicant’s specification at page 10, lines 4-page 11, line 7. This is only one example from the specification and there is other material throughout that indicates that the model is merely a model to be implemented and not AI. The model itself does not perform any analysis or produce any meaningful output, but rather represents the rules, operations, etc. designed by users for which the claimed invention provides tools and data for implementation.
2 This element recites “data on assets of the business” as a type of data being stored and then describes that data. For example, “comprising applications and algorithms” describes what the “data on assets of the business” represents. Then the applications and algorithms that represent assets of the business are further described to indicate what elements may be included and to indicate how they may be used or how they are intended to be used (“the assets comprising physical and digital assets and the digital assets provide automation to the business model through technology and comprise applications used to deliver the activities, wherein the application assets are linked with activities and information”). However, the material in the limitation merely describes what data is included in the “data on assets of the business” and are not, themselves, clearly used at this point in the claim. For example, the applications, algorithms, physical assets, digital assets, etc. or their functions (such as providing automation to the business model) are not positively recites steps performed in the claimed invention, but rather represent descriptions of the stored data. This is further evidenced by the fact that the data is stored as triples. Which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would not store the actual algorithms, applications, or other assets. Themselves.
3 The links, as recited in the claims, are not necessarily a technological element (for example, they do not necessarily represent links between records in the database). They can merely represent data (“relationships” between data input by a user) to show how the data relates based on business rules. See Applicant’s specification at page 1, lines 20-25, Figure 4, etc.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for developing tools/components for manipulating a business model which could be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
creating, by the electronic computing device, an operational interface and displaying the operational interface to allow a user to interact with the business model;
the operational interface and the electronic computing device [used for receiving data, storing data];
creating, by the electronic computing device, application integrations using the information and application schemas4;
the electronic computing device [used for creating ontologies, links, schemas, workflows, algorithms, and a declarative specification]5 including via deployment of hardware and software configurations;
a semantic graph triplestore database [used for storing data];
data storage systems or devices [used for storing data];
building by the electronic computing device in cloud infrastructure, network and server hardware [configurations] required to operate the business model;
realizing, via the electronic computing device, this specification through deployment on the built network and server hardware [configurations]; and/or
operating the business using the built network and server hardware [configurations] in accordance with the business model.
4 The application integrations are merely used to integrate data into a software system (such as data for legacy systems) or deploying software components into a cloud system. Applicant’s disclosure describes these actions at a high level of generality as a manner of adding data or components to the system. It does not provide material to demonstrate a practical application, such as a significant improvement to the system or to the manner in which software is integrated (or any other practical application). See Applicant’s specification at page 17, “7. Design App Mapping” and page 21, “a practical application or “ and “14. Integrate Application Data”.
5 The use of the electronic computing device for the creation of these items provides little, if any detail, regarding how these items are created and therefore does not demonstrate how the electronic computing device (or related components) are used in a significant manner beyond general use. Any descriptions provided are described in a broad manner without significant detail. Although examples of created schemas are provided and are created from sets of triples, this does not provide adequate detail of how they are created that would provide a practical application, improvement to the device, improvement to the art, etc. Likewise, the other creations steps also do not provide adequate detail regarding how they are created by the electronic computing device for the similar reason to the schema example above (creating an activity workflow from the workflow schema, creating algorithms from the algorithm schema to provide user defined business rules, etc.). Although some creation steps may broadly recite what data is used to create the item and/or how they are intended to be used, this does not provide adequate detail regarding how the recited additional elements would be used in a significant manner beyond the abstract ideas to create the items (such a non-generic, non-general use, etc.).
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
For example, the steps for building by the electronic computing device in cloud infrastructure, network and server hardware [configurations] required to operate the business model; realizing, via the electronic computing device, this specification through deployment on the built network and server hardware [configurations]; and operating the business using the built network and server hardware [configurations] in accordance with the business model, merely recite steps for implementing the model/specification that was designed in the previous steps. The model/specification is developed and then merely applied using the determined hardware, infrastructure, etc. through the “building”, “realizing”, and “operating” steps.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at page 30, “The methods described herein may be implemented using a general-purpose computing system specifically programmed to perform the described steps.”; page 38, “… the generic environment configuration elements required to build and deploy a business model to a given cloud provider…"). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the algorithms linked with information that provide user defined business rules to the business model through consumption, computation according to defined rules and resulting output of new information is recited at a high level of generality and merely recite a tool used for processing data.
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Prior Art Identified but not relied upon
Bruno et al. (Pub No. US 2012/0143898 A1). Discloses “…wherein the schema is stored on the storage in either a relational database format or a graph store format.” (see at least Claim 4).
Bhaskaran et al. (Pub No. US 2005/0091093 A1). Discloses a system and method for creating and managing a business process integration solution comprises modeling a business strategy including elements representing business measurements and initiatives according to defined business goals and objectives of an entity (see at least Abstract; [0006]; [0010]; [0021]; [0022]; [0114]; Claims 14-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Prong 1: Applicant argues that “[b]uilding and operating a business model in cloud infrastructure, using network and server hardware to run it, is a clear, real-world, physical activity with tangible items - there is nothing abstract about it.” As stated in the updated rejection, provided above, operating the business model in a cloud infrastructure, using network and server hardware to run it amounts to additional features that are used to apply the abstract ideas. The analysis on these steps has been updated in view of the additional claim language. There is no indication that any computers or machines used to perform these steps are anything beyond generic, general-purpose computers, nor is there any indication that these steps provide an improvement or practical application. For example, the cloud infrastructure merely represents an environment for hosting the network and server hardware built for operating the business model. As explained in the rejection, these steps are merely used to apply the determined model/specification by selecting or identifying components for implementation (see specification at [0020], “10”, for an example).
Prong 2: Applicant does not make clear how/why the recited physical features or their interactions provide a practical application. The recited physical components are merely recited as tools to perform activities in the claims. These are no more than generic, general-purpose tools for applying the claim steps. Applicant fails to identify what the alleged practical application is, and fails to explain how/why the cited features would achieve it.
Step 2B: Similar to Prong 2, above, Applicant fails to explain how/why the listed elements represent additional features or how they provide significantly more. Applicant fails to explain how/why the listed elements (alone or in combination) are non-conventional or provide an inventive concept. It is also noted that non-conventional analysis has not be applied to the claims at this time.
Applicant makes assertions to, but provides no evidence or clear explanation to support, the alleged improvement that provide significantly more, non-conventional real-world solutions, or better outcomes.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 April 16, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights