DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
11/12/2025. In Applicant’s amendment, claim 1 is amended. Claim 3 is canceled.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 7-8 that claim 1 is not directed to recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because it is not like any of the examples and because claim 1 is between computing components or between a user and a computing system’s resources, which is not a human-to-human relationship. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Incorporating the use of computing resources executing software does not preclude the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. The claimed computing resources and additional elements are considered individually and in combination with the limitations directed to the abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 2. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claim provides common functionality, personalizes access to that functionality, and executes workflows which is organizing human activity and managing interactions between people and resources. A user does not need to interact with another user to fall under this category. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(II)(C)(i). Coordinating and personalizing a user’s access to an organization’s resources is managing personal behavior or relationships.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that the claims recite a particular technical computing architecture that provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully submits the claim does not add any technical detail as to how the particular technical architecture accomplishes a technical solution. Instead, the claims merely recite result-based functional language without any particular means for achieving any purported technological solution.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application of an improvement to computer functionality by integrating disparate legacy systems that otherwise would be incompatible and inaccessible without particular knowledge of where the legacy systems are located and how to access them and by shielding complexity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited technical implementation elements are recited at a high level and result-based, rather than concrete technical steps for achieving an improvement to computer functionality. For example, claim 1 recites, “provides access … without knowing a location of the resource.” This merely describes what the outcome of the limitation is, not how the outcome is technically done.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 9-11 that Johnson, Thaker, and Stripe do not disclose “personalize access to the common functionality for users by personalizing a user interface based on an identity of the user, wherein the user interface facilitates access to the legacy systems and wherein the personalizing access comprises determining the selected computing resources that the selected one of the users is allowed to access and personalizing the user interface so that the selected one of the users user may only access the selected computing resources” because Thaker is silent as to personalizing the user interface that facilitates access to the legacy systems based on the identity of the user and Johnson does not discuss accessing a legacy system and personalizing the interface for the user to only access selected computing resources.Examiner respectfully disagrees. Thaker is relied on for providing an intermediate layer that provides access to resources in legacy systems via one or more application program interfaces (APIs). Johnson expressly discloses personalizing user interfaces for users and controls what they can access, see [0123]-[0124] noting the certificate management system and the security management system for provide providing and ensuring user access is permitted; [0220] “When a user (0602-606) accesses the application, they should generally be required to log in through an approved authentication method. Once the credentials are verified, their respective information can be retrieved, and the appropriate interface can be displayed” note the user’s access to the selected resource verified before accessing. Stripe is not relied on for the teaching of the limitation above. As such, the combination of Johnson with Thaker and Stripe disclose the feature “personalize access to the common functionality for users by personalizing a user interface based on an identity of the user, wherein the user interface facilitates access to the legacy systems and wherein the personalizing access comprises determining the selected computing resources that the selected one of the users is allowed to access and personalizing the user interface so that the selected one of the users user may only access the selected computing resources.”
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 4-7 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (system). Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1 and 4-7 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea by reciting provide a unifying layer that provides common functionality across units of an organization, and that provides personalization of access to […]; provide an intermediate layer that provides access to resource in legacy systems via […] and wherein the user may access resource without knowing a location of the resource or how to directly access the resource; wherein via the unifying layer a user may access a resource in legacy systems via […] and wherein the user may access resource without knowing a location of the resource or how to directly access the resource; personalize access to the common functionality for users by personalizing […] based on an identity of the user, […] and wherein the personalizing access comprises determining the selected computing resources that the selected one of the users is allowed to access and personalizing the user interface so that the selected one of the users user may only access the selected computing resources; perform one or more workflows of intermediate layer functional modules for respective units of the organization.
The claim is considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claim provides common functionality, personalizes access to that functionality, and executes workflows which is organizing human activity and managing interactions between people and resources.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer programming instructions and data; one or more processors configured for executing the computer programming instructions; computing resources; one or more application program interfaces (APIs); reusable functional modules that access the resource in the legacy systems via one or more application program interfaces (APIs); a user interface; wherein the user interface facilitates access to the legacy systems) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Claim 5 includes the additional element wherein each workflow comprises computer programming instructions for specifying a sequence of operations to be performed in a process. Claim 6 includes the additional element wherein the computing system includes computer programming instructions that are legacy computer programming instructions for a particular unit of the organization. Claim 7 includes the additional element wherein at least one of the workflows includes an application program interface (API) call to some of the legacy computer programming instructions. Each of these additional elements merely add detail to the abstract idea and use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to “provide” a unifying layer, “provide” an intermediate layer, “access” legacy systems, “personalize” access, and “perform” workflows.
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1 and 4-7 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Johnson et al., US 2010/0198651 A1, hereinafter Johnson in view of
Thaker et al., US 20210124632 A1, hereinafter Thaker, in view of
Stripe et al., US 10372515 B1, hereinafter Stripe. As per,
Claim 1
Johnson teaches
A computing environment, comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer programming instructions and data; one or more processors configured for executing the computer programming instructions to cause the processor to: (Johnson [0148]-[0149])
provide a unifying layer that provides common functionality across units of an organization, and that provides personalization of access to computing resources; (Johnson [0025] “the present invention focuses on integrating infrastructure operations of a business as a whole … The present invention provides a comprehensive combination of processes, applications, and interfaces for a plurality of users. To facilitate this goal, the present invention utilizes a relational database management … as a unified Operational Data Storage (ODS) for the business and system data” note the integrated infrastructure operations of a business as a whole with a plurality of users; [0029])
[…];
[…];
personalize access to the common functionality for users by personalizing a user interface based on an identity of the user, […] and (Johnson [0029] “PROVIDE MULTIPLE USER-SPECIFIC INTERFACES. The present invention takes a truly unique approach from most enterprise applications in that it provides specialized/optimized interfaces for all users and processes within infrastructure operations … These interfaces provide the appropriate tooling for end-users and management as well as discipline specific tooling for technicians, administrators, and support organizations.” Note the personalized interface and tools for users; [0126]-[0130] “A plurality of user interfaces may be provided for administration, configuration, and normal usability. a. Administration—special interfaces may exist to manage the present invention including establishing communication parameters, database management, monitoring, logging, process management, and management of integration components. b. Configuration—special interfaces may exist for configuration of roles, rules, domain, certificate, security, messaging and interface configuration. c. User—special interfaces may exist for five categories of users. Each interface may be designed to facilitate the needs from the user's unique perspective, with varying degrees of complexity, flexibility and predetermination.” Note the personalized user interfaces for administration, configuration, and normal use. Additionally, see the examples of different personalized interfaces in [0130]-[0134]; [0271] “every individual must have a unique identifier within the domain … These identifiers can be utilized if consideration is given when establishing the domain boundary” note the identification of users and the consideration given to a user’s identity when establishing what they access)
wherein the personalizing access comprises determining the selected computing resources that the selected one of the users is allowed to access and personalizing the user interface so that the selected one of the users user may only access the selected computing resources; (Johnson [0123]-[0124] noting the certificate management system and the security management system for provide providing and ensuring user access is permitted; [0220] “When a user (0602-0606) accesses the application, they should generally be required to log in through an approved authentication method. Once the credentials are verified, their respective information can be retrieved, and the appropriate interface can be displayed” note the user’s access to the selected resource verified before accessing)
perform one or more workflows of intermediate layer functional modules for respective units of the organization. (Johnson [0042] “The present invention as generally illustrated in FIG. 3 (0300) succeeds in integrating various groups within a given corporate enterprise (0301) by introducing shared databases between various enterprise group intersections … These intersected databases are then controlled by the interaction of three processes: resource management (0313), problem management (0314), and request management (0315) that permit integrated control, management, dissemination of corporate resources in response to overall enterprise needs and goals” note the interaction of the processes (workflows) specific to the respective group within the enterprise)
Johnson does not explicitly teach, Thaker however in the analogous art of enterprise application programming teaches
provide an intermediate layer that provides access to resource in legacy systems via one or more application program interfaces (APIs) and wherein the user may access resource without knowing a location of the resource or how to directly access the resource; (Thaker [0014] “one or more layers may be added between the modern application and the legacy endpoint. Each layer may provide a different API. These layers of APIs may transform the interface of the legacy endpoint” note the one or more layers corresponding to an intermediate layer; the layers providing access to a legacy system and transforming the appearance of the legacy system; [0036] “The order REST service layer 420 may provide RESTful service calls to the consumer of the service, allowing the consumer to access the legacy SOA service (e.g., the order service layer 460) without using the SOA interface. In some example embodiments, the consumer does not need to understand how the SOA service operates”)
[…] wherein the user interface facilitates access to the legacy systems […]; (Thaker [0014])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson’s unified operations to include access to legacy resources without knowing how to directly access them in view of Thaker in an effort to improve developer productivity by encapsulating the complexity of legacy endpoints at various levels (see Thaker [0047] & MPEP 2143G).
Johnson / Thaker do not explicitly teach, Stripe however in the analogous art of enterprise application programming teaches
wherein via the unifying layer a user may access a resource in legacy systems via reusable functional modules in the intermediate layer that access the resource in the legacy systems via one or more application program interfaces (APIs) and wherein the user may access resource without knowing a location of the resource or how to directly access the resource; (Stripe 2:9-13 “a system generally referred to by the reference numeral 10 includes a System Agnostic Front End (“SAFE”) application 15, which provides a common “front end” application” note the SAFE corresponding to the intermediate layer; fig. 4; 5:11-20 “FIG. 4 is a logical view diagram of one exemplary embodiment of the system 10 that includes a consumer layer, a security layer, an application layer, an integration layer including an Enterprise Service Bus (“ESB”) 130, and a resource layer. In an exemplary embodiment, the presentation layer of the SAFE application 15 includes AngularJS and/or JQuery. In an exemplary embodiment, the application layer of the SAFE application 15 includes Web API and MVC” 11:27-42 “the system 10 includes an arrangement of elements (i.e., the SAFE application 15, the first legacy computer system 20, and the second legacy computer system 25) that is a technical improvement over the previous ways of accessing data in two legacy computer systems. … the SAFE application 15 joins two disparate systems (i.e., the first legacy computer system 20 and the second legacy computer system 25) into a unified interface” noting the unified interface providing access to legacy systems; 10:19-35 “the SAFE application 15 provides mechanics the functionality to view and enter aircraft maintenance discrepancies, including minimum equipment lists (“MELs”), via the single common front end application … In an exemplary embodiment, the SAFE application 15 updates back end systems automatically without the mechanic having to know data entry formats for either the first legacy computer system 20 or the second legacy computer system 25. In an exemplary embodiment, the SAFE application 15 directs the mechanic in the “right” direction from an aircraft “maintenance program” perspective.” Noting the user accessing a resource without knowing location or how to directly access the resource)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson’s unified operations and Thaker’s transformed access to legacy systems to include reusable functional modules in legacy system access in view of Stripe in an effort to improve efficiency and speed in accessing legacy systems (see Stripe 11:30-40 & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 4
Johnson teaches
wherein the organization is a business organization and the units are business units. (Johnson fig. 3; fig. 4; [0047] “As generally illustrated in FIG. 4 (0400), the real business needs can only begin to be understood after one realizes that infrastructure operations includes the people (0403), facility (0404), and IT services (0402). At this level, these business units are highly dependent/interdependent, and share the same infrastructure and customer base” note the enterprise as the business organization shown in fig. 3 and the different business units as shown in fig. 4)
Claim 5
Johnson teaches
wherein each workflow comprises computer programming instructions for specifying a sequence of operations to be performed in a process. (Johnson [0169] “The description and control language is designed to facilitate much of this control by defining process flow in a process definition (1502, 3102);” [0317] “The monitoring engine (1210) is a process that runs continually, and looks for events or situations to execute some code, process, log, etc. When found, the code can perform any combination of simple and/or complex tasks” note the control language as computer programming instructions and the process flow as the sequence of operations to be performed in a process)
Claim 6
Johnson teaches
wherein the computing environment includes computer programming instructions that are legacy computer programming instructions for a particular unit of the organization. (Johnson [0348] “Integration components (0610, 1110) are a loosely grouped set of tools that provide mechanisms to push and/or pull data to/from legacy and proprietary systems, as well as, various non-specific data feeds. These tools may generally be developed by the engagement team when implementing the present invention at a specific customer location” note the integration of the system with a legacy system for a specific unit of the organization; see also [0022]; [0165]; [0173]; [0310])
Claim 7
Johnson teaches
wherein at least one of the workflows includes an application program interface (API) call to some of the legacy computer programming instructions. (Johnson [0195] “Service interfaces are network-based communication channels that support interoperability between modules and/or computing systems. … These technologies can provide additional mechanisms for communicating internally and externally of the present invention including application programming interfaces (APIs)” note the communication between the integrated system and an external system (legacy system) including an API)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160366137 A1; WO 2022261809 A1; Ramakrishnanet al., Explaining Scenarios for Information Personalization, 2001.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624