DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims repeat the newly added limitations to independent claims 1, 9 and 17 regarding modifying the programming logic of the software application. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 - 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a computing system comprising: a processor configured to: receive a user input relating to a software application capable of performing an initial set of features; generate, based on the user input, an extension comprising logic for a software application hosted on a host platform to cause the software application to perform one or more additional features not in the initial set of features, the extension comprising a semantic rule engine, wherein the logic comprises an entity-based semantic model; deploy the extension within the software application on the host platform, wherein the processor modifies programming logic of the software application to execute the entity-based semantic model during the deployment, wherein modifying the programming logic of the software application comprises inserting the entity-based semantic model between pre logic and post logic of the programming logic of the software application; and activate the extension within the software application on the host platform.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitation is “generate an extension comprising logic …” in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including “receive a user input …,” “deploy the extension …” and “activate the extension …” are considered as extra-activity solutions for gathering information which are insignificant and outputting information regarding the events is merely an applied application and insignificantly amounts to the judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directed to an abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
That is, other than reciting “receive a user input …,” “deploy the extension …” and “activate the extension …” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind such that the “generate an extension comprising logic …” limitation is mental processes under Prong I of step 2A. Generation of an extension comprising logic in the form of a graph or semantic model as described in the specification can be performed as a manual process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the generate step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Additionally, the steps of “receive a user input …,” “deploy the extension …” and “activate the extension …” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements 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 of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 17 are rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1. Additionally, dependent claims 2 – 7, 10 – 15 and 18 - 20 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As per claims 2 and 11, wherein the triggers include alarms and timers (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 2, 10 and 18, wherein the processor is configured to modify the programming logic of the software application and insert the entity-based semantic model between pre logic and post logic of the programming logic of the software application (abstract idea under mental process under Prong I step 2A).
As per claims 3, 11 and 19, wherein the processor is configured to display a list of custom extensions for the software application via a user interface and detect a selection of the extension from among the list of custom extensions based on a user input via the user interface (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 4 and 12, wherein the entity-based semantic model comprises a graph that includes nodes that represent entities and edges that connect the nodes and that represent relationships among the entities (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 5, 13 and 20, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a request for logic execution from a software process via an application programming interface (API) of the software application, and in response, execute the received request based on the entity-based semantic model included in the extension and return results of the execution to the software process (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 6 and 14, wherein the processor is further configured to display a user interface within an integrated development environment (IDE) which provides access to the entity-based semantic model (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 7 and 15, wherein the processor is further configured to customize the entity-based semantic model within the extension based on user input that requests changes to the entity-based semantic model via the user interface within the IDE (abstract idea under mental process under Prong I step 2A).
As per claims 8 and 16, wherein the processor is configured to generate a parallel architecture within the programming logic of the software application which enables the software application to access the entity-based semantic model and a relational database (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington (U.S. Publication 2015/0378742) (Harrington hereinafter) in view of Danilchenko et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0382928) (Danilchenko hereinafter).
10. As per claim 1, Harrington teaches a computing system comprising: a processor configured to: receive a user input relating to a software application capable of performing an initial set of features [“An extensible software application utilizes rules to initiate a behavior that performs operations that customize the extensible software application in a preferred manner. The behavior is applied when pre-defined events occur during execution of the extensible software application. The rules are provided by a third party developer (i.e., the author of the extension, “extension author”) and define the events that need to take place during execution of the extensible software application before the behavior is applied” ¶ 0013; rules provided by third party developer mapped to user input relating to a software application];
generate, based on the user input, an extension comprising logic for a software application hosted on a host platform to cause the software application to perform one or more additional features not in the initial set of features, the extension comprising a semantic rule engine, wherein the logic comprises an entity-based semantic model [“a rules engine that generate at least one rule associated with an extension, the at least one rule including an expression that is evaluated based on whether or not one or more events occur during execution of an extensible software application,” Cl. 14; rules engine mapped to semantic model].
Harrington does not explicitly disclose but Danilchenko discloses deploy the extension within the software application on the host platform, wherein the processor modifies programming logic of the software application to execute the entity-based semantic model during the deployment [“the ADM 400 and DDM 410 provide data models to the OLGA 700. Such a method may comprise defining an ontological model, generating an ontology library based on the ontological model, deploying the ontology library to an IoT system, generating an ontology instance based on the ontology library deployed to the IoT system, modifying an IoT application based on the ontology instance,” ¶ 0062; ontology library mapped to extension];
wherein modifying the programming logic of the software application comprises inserting the entity-based semantic model between pre logic and post logic of the programming logic of the software application [“Additionally, embodiments described herein can facilitate the control of devices or system components represented by the asset and device data models. Thus, while information can be collected from the various devices and system components (i.e., data can flow in a northbound direction), embodiments can further provide control logic that can orchestrate control operations for the devices and system components (i.e., control instructions can flow in a southbound direction,” ¶ 0025; control logic mapped to core logic existing between pre and post logic]; and
activate the extension within the software application on the host platform [“managing the IoT system utilizing the IoT application,” ¶ 0062; managing using the modified application suggests activation of the extension/ontology instance].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington and Danilchenko available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington to include the capability of dynamic ontology data operation as taught by Danilchenko, thereby facilitating efficient use of computing and network resources.
11. As per claim 2, Harrington and Danilchenko teach the computing system of claim 1. Danilchenko further teaches wherein the processor is configured to modify the programming logic of the software application and insert the entity-based semantic model between pre logic and post logic of the programming logic of the software application [“Additionally, embodiments described herein can facilitate the control of devices or system components represented by the asset and device data models. Thus, while information can be collected from the various devices and system components (i.e., data can flow in a northbound direction), embodiments can further provide control logic that can orchestrate control operations for the devices and system components (i.e., control instructions can flow in a southbound direction,” ¶ 0025; control logic mapped to core logic existing between pre and post logic].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington and Danilchenko available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington to include the capability of dynamic ontology data operation as taught by Danilchenko, thereby facilitating efficient use of computing and network resources.
12. As per claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
13. As per claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
14. As per claim 17, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
15. As per claim 18, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
16. Claims 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington and Danilchenko in further view of Clinton (U.S. Patent 7,802,238) (Clinton hereinafter).
17. As per claim 3, Harrington and Danilchenko teach the computing system of claim 1. Harrington and Danilchenko do not explicitly disclose but Clinton discloses wherein the processor is configured to display a list of custom extensions for the software application via a user interface and detect a selection of the extension from among the list of custom extensions based on a user input via the user interface [“The code wizards 2024 generate a set of output components corresponding to the supplied object or primitive definition. A set of include files are generated to enable a developer to access primitive attributes by name rather than internal identification. A runtime code shell generated by the code wizards 2024 lays out the framework for all code required by the object during runtime. Exemplary entries specify code for the following methods supported by an object: execute, startup, onscan, offscan, and shutdown. A package code shell generated by the code wizards 2024 lays out the framework for methods that are needed to interact with the configuration database 124. A custom editor code shell generated by the code wizards 2024 provides a user interface for specifying the contents of a file that supplies the content for an editor to display to a user when configuring the object/primitive via the IDE,” col. 29, line 63 – col. 30, line 12; object/primitive mapped to custom extension; “A "contain" function supported by the IDE, in an embodiment of the present invention, facilitates establishing containment relationships between objects via a graphical user interface "drag and drop" operation. To establish a containment relationship between a source and target (container) application object, a developer selects the source application object displayed on a user interface, drags the source application object on top of the target (container) object, and then drops the source application object on the target application object,” col. 22, lines 58 – 66].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington, Danilchenko and Clinton available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington and Danilchenko to include the capability of mixed language code selection and execution as taught by Clinton, thereby facilitating selection of available system resources.
18. As per claim 6, Harrington and Danilchenko teach the computing system of claim 1. Harrington and Danilchenko do not explicitly disclose but Clinton discloses wherein the processor is further configured to display a user interface within an integrated development environment (IDE) which provides access to the entity-based semantic model [“The code wizards 2024 generate a set of output components corresponding to the supplied object or primitive definition. A set of include files are generated to enable a developer to access primitive attributes by name rather than internal identification. A runtime code shell generated by the code wizards 2024 lays out the framework for all code required by the object during runtime. Exemplary entries specify code for the following methods supported by an object: execute, startup, onscan, offscan, and shutdown. A package code shell generated by the code wizards 2024 lays out the framework for methods that are needed to interact with the configuration database 124. A custom editor code shell generated by the code wizards 2024 provides a user interface for specifying the contents of a file that supplies the content for an editor to display to a user when configuring the object/primitive via the IDE,” col. 29, line 63 – col. 30, line 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington, Danilchenko and Clinton available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington and Danilchenko to include the capability of mixed language code selection and execution as taught by Clinton, thereby facilitating selection of available system resources.
19. As per claim 7, Harrington, Danilchenko and Clinton teach the computing system of claim 6. Clinton further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to customize the entity-based semantic model within the extension based on user input that requests changes to the entity-based semantic model via the user interface within the IDE [“User defined attribute primitives enable users, through the IDE, to add attributes that were not specified during the object design stage using the toolkit,” col. 30, lines 49 – 51; “An object is also includes editor components. A base object editor 2034 provides standard editor pages common to all objects. Custom editor pages 2036 provide editor pages for the customized portions of an object definition,” col. 30, lines 58 – 61; object definition mapped to semantic model, custom editing capability suggests changes based on user input].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington, Danilchenko and Clinton available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington and Danilchenko to include the capability of object modification by users as taught by Clinton, thereby facilitating selection of available system resources.
20. As per claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
21. As per claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
22. As per claim 15, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
23. As per claim 19, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
24. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington and Danilchenko in further view of Bhamidipaty et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0019742) (Bhamidipaty hereinafter).
25. As per claim 4, Harrington and Danilchenko teach the computing system of claim 1. Harrington and Danilchenko do not explicitly disclose but Bhamidipaty discloses wherein the entity-based semantic model comprises a graph that includes nodes that represent entities and edges that connect the nodes and that represent relationships among the entities [“In one embodiment, the semantic model is a knowledge graph with nodes representing entities and edges representing relationships between the entities.” ¶ 0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington, Danilchenko and Bhamidipaty available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington and Danilchenko to include the capability of semantic model construction as taught by Bhamidipaty, thereby utilizing a construct commonly applied in the art to facilitate maintainability.
26. As per claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
27. Claims 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington and Danilchenko in further view of Edoja (U.S. Publication 2012/0259891) (Edoja hereinafter).
28. As per claim 5, Harrington and Danilchenko teach the computing system of claim 1. Harrington and Danilchenko do not explicitly disclose but Edoja discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a request for logic execution from a software process via an application programming interface (API) of the software application, and in response, execute the received request based on the entity-based semantic model included in the extension and return results of the execution to the software process [“The management module 134 is configured to manage all modules comprised in the AIE 130. In particular, upon receipt of the command from the API 133 associated with API calls (in turn, received from the VAI 120), the management module 134 may retrieve a corresponding rule set and service data (such as user account data, reference data, etc.) from the database 135 to request the retrieving module 131 to retrieve corresponding data, generate a semantic model, and process data according to the selected rule set and the semantic model. Processed data (i.e., analytics data, such as web analytics data) is then returned to API 133 to communicate to the VAI 120 via the AI chatbot 123.” ¶ 0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington, Danilchenko and Edoja available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington and Danilchenko to include the capability of analytics data delivery as taught by Edoja, thereby utilizing a construct commonly applied in the art to facilitate maintainability.
29. As per claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
30. As per claim 20, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
31. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington and Danilchenko in further view of Savkli (U.S. Publication 2016/0063037) (Savkli hereinafter).
32. As per claim 8, Harrington and Danilchenko teach the computing system of claim 1. Harrington and Danilchenko do not explicitly disclose but Savkli discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate a parallel architecture within the programming logic of the software application which enables the software application to access the entity-based semantic model and a relational database [“The method for distributed graph processing may extend the property graph model interface, e.g., Blueprints graph API, to offer enhanced graph processing functionality that includes locality control, additional graph methods facilitating graph analytics, as well as a parallel processing capability. The method for distributed graph processing may be built upon a cluster of SQL databases, storing main data objects and associations as key-value pairs,” ¶ 0040; parallel processing capability suggests a parallel processing architecture].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Harrington, Danilchenko and Savkli available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of application extension as disclosed by Harrington and Danilchenko to include the capability of distributed graph processing as taught by Savkli, thereby facilitating system efficiency via parallel processing techniques.
33. As per claim 16, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
34. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35. Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 that the present claims “cannot be seen to even remotely correspond to the examples of the Mental Processes subject matter grouping. However, as noted above, each claim limitation is identified as being a mental process or extra-solution activity. Generating a software extension is inherently a mental process because it consists of software development, which is generally conducted manually as a mental process. The other identified limitations, including receiving user input, deploying the extension and activating the extension are identified above as extra-solution activities.
36. Applicant additionally argues on page 10 that the claims amount to improvements in computer functionality or other technology and are thus not abstract. However, the claims as recited are merely steps in a process implemented on generic computing technology, or more specifically mere automation of manual processes similar to that described in MPEP 2106.05(A)(I) and (II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
37. Applicant’s arguments with 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
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193