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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-9, 11-26, and 28-33 remain pending in this application.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 11-26, and 28-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 11, “Kestral” should be --Kestrel--. Claims 18 and 33 have a similar issue. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, 19-26, and 28-32 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Applicants should please see the rejection below for clarification as it will substantially duplicate any response to the arguments in this section. However, the Applicant should also please note that the limitations of the claim, even when taken as an ordered combination, do not provide steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application. The newly added limitations of “receives and processes the query by invoking a content repository which sends a list of source technologies and a list of target technologies to be rendered for selection via the UI of the user device” merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as presenting/displaying data, transmitting, gathering and/or storing data, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Also, the newly added limitations of “via an Application Programming Interface (API) server unit, which operates as a Kestral Server and a Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface (REST API)” are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the recited judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application, and the claims remain ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 1-9, 11-26, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claim 1 is similar to that of claims 18 and 33 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites:
A system for optimized modernization of applications, the system comprising:
(a) a memory storing programing instructions;
(b) a processor executing the program instructions stored in the memory; and
(c) an application modernization engine executed by the processor and configured to:
(d) receive one or more pre-defined categories of application modernization and technology stacks as a query from a user device, wherein the pre-defined categories of application modernization and technology stacks are rendered via a user interface (UI) of the user device based on a first set of pre-defined rules;
(e) determine, via an Application Programming Interface (API) server unit, which operates as a Kestral Server and a Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface (REST API), application modernization identifiers associated with the query, wherein the API Server Unit receives and processes the query by invoking a content repository which sends a list of source technologies and a list of target technologies to be rendered for selection via the UI of the user device, and wherein a compatibility check is carried out between the identifiers based on a pre-defined compatibility rule;
(f) recommend a solution for application modernization based on a second set of pre-defined rules by analyzing the application modernization identifiers,
(g) wherein the second set of pre-defined rules includes identifying modernization technologies included in the query based on technology equivalence and technology compatibility of the modernization technologies with respect to an existing application technology, and wherein the technology equivalence is determined based on an operational time period, generation and capabilities of a similar technology by using an equivalence relation stored in a schema, and wherein the technology compatibility is determined based on a compatibility relation of the modernization technologies with respect to previously selected target technologies across one or more technology stacks by using the compatibility relation stored in the schema, which dynamically provides contextual modernization of applications that are potentially relevant to user requirements; and
(h) generate and assemble a downloadable Modernization Acceleration Kit (MAK) associated with the application modernization identifiers based on the recommended solution for implementation of the recommended solution for optimized modernization of the application, wherein the technology equivalence recommends similar MAKs for equivalent technology transformations.
Step 1:
The claim falls within statutory a category of being a system.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claim recites the limitations of:
(e) determine application modernization identifiers associated with the query, wherein a compatibility check is carried out between the identifiers based on a pre-defined compatibility rule;
(f) recommend a solution for application modernization based on a second set of pre-defined rules by analyzing the identifiers,
(g) wherein the second set of pre-defined rules includes identifying modernization technologies included in the query based on technology equivalence and technology compatibility of the modernization technology with respect to an existing application technology, wherein the technology equivalence is determined based on an operational time period, generation and capabilities of a similar technology by using an equivalence relation, and wherein the technology compatibility is determined based on a compatibility relation of the modernization technology with respect to previously selected target technologies across one or more technology stacks by using the compatibility relation and
(h) generate and assemble a downloadable Modernization Acceleration Kit (MAK) associated with the application modernization identifiers based on the recommended solution for implementation of the recommended solution for optimized modernization of the application, wherein the technology equivalence recommends similar MAKs for equivalent technology transformations;
Limitations (e)-(h) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determine”, “recommend”, “identify”, and “generate” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The claim recites additional elements in the limitations (a)-(c), as well as “a user interface (UI)”, “a user device”, “a content repository”, and “via an Application Programming Interface (API) server unit, which operates as a Kestral Server and a Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface (REST API)”, which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Also, the additional elements recited in limitation (d) as well as “stored in a schema”, “dynamically provides contextual modernization of applications that are potentially relevant to user requirements,” and “receives and processes the query by invoking a content repository which sends a list of source technologies and a list of target technologies to be rendered for selection via the UI of the user device”, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as presenting/displaying, gathering, storing and transmitting data, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements recited in the limitations of (a)-(c), as well as “a user interface (UI)”, “a user device”, “a content repository” and “via an Application Programming Interface (API) server unit, which operates as a Kestral Server and a Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface (REST API)”, all merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in the limitation (d) and the limitations “stored in a schema”, “dynamically provides contextual modernization of applications that are potentially relevant to user requirements,” and “receives and processes the query by invoking a content repository which sends a list of source technologies and a list of target technologies to be rendered for selection via the UI of the user device” and thus these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept and the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally claim 2 recites “wherein the application modernization engine comprises a web server unit and an authentication server unit executed by the processor, the web server unit is configured to communicate with the authentication server unit prior to receiving the query, for receiving an authentication token for the user device for accessing the application modernization engine, and wherein the authentication server unit is configured to communicate with a directory server, which stores and maintains multiple users' data, for authorizing the user device to access the application modernization engine.” The additional elements of “a web server unit and an authentication server unit executed by the processor” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in the limitations of “communicate with the authentication server unit prior to receiving the query, for receiving an authentication token for a user device for accessing the application modernization engine”, communicate with the authentication server unit prior to receiving the query, for receiving an authentication token for a user device for accessing the application modernization engine, and communicate with a directory server, which stores and maintains multiple users' data, for authorizing the user device to access the application modernization engine” and thus these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claims 3 and 20 recite “wherein the web server unit is configured to render the dynamic user interface (UI) on the user device including a dashboard for capturing the query on the user device, and wherein the dashboard on the UI renders the pre-defined categories of application modernization and a list of the technology stacks”. The additional elements of “a web server unit”, “dynamic user interface (UI)”, “user device”, and “dashboard” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, the courts have identified functions such as displaying/presenting data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in the limitations of “capturing the query on the user device, and wherein the dashboard on the UI renders the pre-defined categories of application modernization and a list of the technology stacks” and thus these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claims 4 and 21 recite “wherein the pre-defined categories of application modernization include cloud migration, technology migration, technology upgrade and legacy modernization, and wherein the technology stacks include an operating system, a database, a programing language, a framework, a middleware and a scheduler”. The courts have identified functions such as gathering and transmitting data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in this limitation and thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claim 5 recites “wherein the application modernization engine comprises the Application programming Interface (API) server unit executed by the processor and configured to receive the query from a web server unit, and analyzes the query for determining identifiers associated with the query,” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data .See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claims 6 and 23 recite “wherein the query includes two identifiers for application modernization associated with user's needs and requirements, wherein the two identifiers comprise a source technology selected from the list of source technologies and a target technology selected from the list of target technologies, the selected source technology represents technology of an existing application and the selected target technology represents a new technology into which the existing application needs to be migrated”, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claim 7 recites “wherein the application modernization engine comprises the content repository executed by the processor and configured to send a list of source technology tags and a list of target technology tags, via a web content management server unit, for selection to a web server unit, wherein the source technology tags are rendered along with different versions and expiry dates, and wherein the target technology tags are rendered along with different versions and expiry dates, and most popular and latest target technology tags are rendered separately” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, transmitting and presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 8 recites “wherein the recommended solution is fetched by a web content management server unit from the content repository for rendering on a user device, and wherein the recommended solution is an application modernization solution which is an exact or a similar solution with respect to the selected target technology,” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, transmitting and presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claims 9 and 26 recite “wherein the recommended solution is provided along with a match percentage representative of a percentage value of match for the recommended solution with respect to a source technology tag and a target technology tag”, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claims 11 and 28 recite “wherein the recommended solution relates to application migration, database (DB) migration, operating system (OS) migration, programming language update, framework migration and hardware modifications”, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering and presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claims 12 and 29 recite “wherein the content repository is configured with a first version type of metadata related to various technologies which is processed by the web content management server unit for recommending the solution via the UI based on the selected source technology and the target technology, and wherein a My SQL DB associated with the application modernization engine is configured with a second version type of the metadata which is processed for recommending the solution via the UI based on the selected source technology and the target technology” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claims 13 and 30 recite “wherein the application modernization engine generates a summary of the recommended solution based on a third set of pre-defined rules, the third set of pre-defined rules includes generating at the summary comprising one or more of a brief description of the recommended solution, modernization phases, tools used, modifications made to the existing application during the modernization process such as, impact on the system, impact on databases, impact on features in database, impact on application, conversion mode, new function mode and application migration steps” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering and presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claims 14 and 31 recite “wherein a web content management server unit in communication with the content repository provides for assembling and generating the MAK associated with the identifiers based on a fourth set of pre-defined rules for implementation of the solution, the MAK being downloadable, and wherein the MAK is contextualized based on constraints and customized to generate a solution blueprint for implementation of the recommended solution” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, transmitting, and presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claim 15 recites “wherein the web content management server unit in communication with the content repository provides an option to navigate across all relevant technology stacks to assemble associated solutions dynamically,” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity of presenting and transmitting data .See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 16 recites “wherein in the event the web content management server unit is not able to recommend a solution for the selected source target technology and the target technology, then the web content management server unit creates a 'no solution' entry in the content repository and communicates the selected source target technology and the target technology to a Subject Matter Expert (SME) for solution generation” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity of presenting and transmitting data .See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 17 recites “wherein the application modernization engine comprises a feedback capturing unit executed by the processor and configured to capture feedback related to effectiveness of the recommended solution via a user device, and wherein the feedback capturing unit is configured to communicate with a web content management server unit for transmitting the feedback for storage in a content repository for the web content management server unit to regularly provide an efficient solution recommendation,” which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity of presenting and transmitting data .See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 19 recites “wherein an authentication token is provided to at the user device, on which the UI is rendered, for accessing the application modernization engine for carrying out the optimized application modernization,” which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 22 recites “wherein the query is processed for determining identifiers associated with the query” which recites an additional mental process, i.e. “process “can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 24 recites “wherein a list of source technology tags and a list of target technology tags are rendered via the UI for selection based on an authentication process, and wherein the source technology tags are rendered along with different versions and expiry dates, and wherein the target technology tags are rendered along with different versions and expiry dates, and most popular and latest target technology tags are rendered separately”, which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 25 recites “wherein the recommended solution is an application modernization solution which is an exact or a similar solution with respect to the selected target technology”, which merely recite insignificant extra solution activity of gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 32 recites “wherein a feedback is captured related to effectiveness of the recommended solution via the user device, and wherein the feedback is used for regularly providing an efficient solution recommendation”, which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and also insignificant extra solution activity such as presenting and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/spe, art unit 2192