DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/6/2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Final Rejection of 8/7/25, Applicant, on 11/6/25, amended claims. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The previous 112a rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
New 112 rejections are now present.
The 101 rejections are withdrawn, based on a best understanding of the claims in light of the 112 rejections.
The 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "access a knowledge map module according to a business indicator rule" in page 3, lines 16-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as claim 1 on page 2, line 8 already introduced “a knowledge map module” and page 2, lines 16-17 already introduced “a business indicator rule.” It is unclear if there are intended to be one or two of each. Examiner suggests page 3, lines 16-18 recite “access [[a]] the knowledge map module according to [[a]] the business indicator rule.”
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 on page 3, lines 20-21 recites “when the first input parameter is missing the execution module issues a missing command to an action logic map unit.” It is difficult to understand as it appears to be stating “missing the execution module”; but in independent claim 11, a comma is used which helps clarify the different limitations. Examiner suggests a similar comma be used here: “when the first input parameter is missing, the execution module issues a missing command to an action logic map unit.”
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “action logic map unit” in the last limitation on page 3, but it is unclear what the relationship is relative to other modules, the processor, and the device recited. [0042] as published and FIG. 3 appear to be the support stating “The memory in the server 330 stores multiple modules (or units) 331 to 332 and related programs for realizing the knowledge map, so as to be accessed and executed by the processor in the server 330. The foregoing modules may include a management knowledge map unit 331 and an action logic map unit 332.” Accordingly, Examiner suggests Applicant amend the final limitation to recite “action logic map unit of the knowledge map module” so one can understand whether the action logic map unit is part of the electronic device or the server, as well as context relative to other modules.
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: 1) it is unclear if there are two or three different computers, as the claim is unclear if the “processor” is part of the server; 2) it is unclear whether the electronic device, server, or processor is performing each step; and 3) as in claim 1, similar issues with the final step is “wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the first input parameter have missing field according to a target invoked API, wherein the first input parameter is missing the execution module issues a missing command to an action logic map unit, so that the action logic map unit finds another field with matching meanings from the business indicator rule according to the missing field, the execution module executes an invocation in advance to another field library system according to the another field, so as to obtain parameter corresponding to the missing field, the execution module reconstructs data structure of the first input parameter according to the obtained parameter, and generates invocation chain information accordingly”. Examiner is not sure what is being referred to here exactly with the final words of “generates invocation chain information accordingly”. An earlier limitation states “generate a business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule according to a plurality of fields of user setting data and the dependency relationship, wherein the business indicator rule comprises invocation chain information.” It appears the source of the limitation is from [0057] as published stating:
“when an input parameter obtained by the execution engine 320 is missing, the execution engine 320 makes up for a missing first input parameter to update the input parameter. The execution engine 320 continues the method with the updated input parameters as the current input parameters. Specifically, referring to the business indicator rule, the execution engine 320 analyzes whether the input parameters of the first task have missing fields or conditional data according to the target invoked APIs (e.g., APIs 411 and 413). When the aforementioned analysis results indicate that there are missing information, the execution engine 320 issues a missing command to the action logic map unit 332. The action logic map unit 332 finds other fields with matching meanings from the business indicator rule according to the missing data. The execution engine 320 executes an invocation in advance to another field library system (not shown) according to the aforementioned other fields, so as to obtain parameters corresponding to this field. The execution engine 320 reconstructs the data structure of the input parameters according to the obtained parameters, and generates invocation chain information accordingly.”
The earlier limitation is “execute the first task on the electronic device based on the invocation chain information to generate a first execution result” and later… “wherein the processor is configured to execute the execution module to invoke the first APIs based on the invocation chain information according to a first input parameter of the first task to generate the execution result.” The limitations as constructed make it unclear if the earlier step occurs a second time or first time. Examiner suggests Applicant consider positively reciting limitations, and clarifying what is occurring at the end with the ‘accordingly.” Examiner’s best guess at curing all 112 issues is the following suggestions for claim 1:
A data processing system, comprising:
an electronic device, comprising a plurality of heterogeneous business systems, and the heterogeneous business systems comprise a plurality of first application programing interfaces (APIs); and
a server, connected to the electronic device, and configured to execute a business execution system, wherein the server comprises:
a memory, configured to store a plurality of modules and a detection and execution rule, wherein the modules further comprise a knowledge map module; and
a processor, coupled to the memory and an electronic device, configured to execute the modules, wherein the modules comprise a detection module and an execution module,
wherein the processor receives user setting data input by a user,
s the knowledge map module to collect definition data of a plurality of first APIs of the electronic device, calculate the definition data to generate dependency relationship among the first APIs, and generate a business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule according to a plurality of fields of the user setting data and the dependency relationship, wherein the business indicator rule comprises invocation chain information, and
the processor executes the knowledge map module based on the invocation chain information,
s the knowledge map module to set a timing scheduling rule and a follow-up processing rule in the detection and execution rule according to the user setting data,
s the detection module to periodically create a first task according to the detection and execution rule, and obtain an action number of the first task, wherein the action number corresponds to a business indicator,
s the execution module to obtain the invocation chain information in the detection and execution rule according to the action number, and executes the first task on the electronic device based on the invocation chain information to generate a first execution result,
s the detection module to determine whether the detection module creates a second task according to the detection and execution rule and the first execution result, so that the execution module executes the second task to generate a second execution result,
s the execution module to invoke the first APIs based on the invocation chain information according to a first input parameter of the first task to generate the execution result,
s the execution module to access[[a]] the knowledge map module according to [[a]] the business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule to obtain the first input parameter,
s whether the first input parameter has a missing field according to a target invoked API, when the first input parameter is missing, the execution module issues a missing command to an action logic map unit of the knowledge map module, so that the action logic map unit finds another field with matching meanings from the business indicator rule according to the missing field,
the processor executes the execution module to execute[[s]] an invocation in advance to another field library system according to the another field with the matching meaning, so as to obtain a parameter corresponding to the missing field, the execution module reconstructs a data structure of the first input parameter according to the obtained parameter, and generates the invocation chain information with the obtained parameter to the target invoked API to generate the execution result.
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the final step is “…the action logic map unit finds another field with matching meanings from the business indicator rule according to the missing field; executing an invocation in advance to another field library system according to the another field through the execution module, so as to obtain parameter corresponding to the missing field; and reconstructing data structure of the first input parameter according to the obtained parameter through the execution module, and generating invocation chain information accordingly”. Examiner is not sure what is being referred to here exactly with the final words of “generates invocation chain information accordingly”. An earlier limitation states “generate a business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule according to a plurality of fields of user setting data and the dependency relationship through the knowledge map module, wherein the business indicator rule comprises invocation chain information.” It appears the source of the limitation is from [0057] as published as above in claim 1.
Similar to claim 1, since claim 11 is a method claim, Examiner suggests Applicant consider positively reciting limitations, and clarifying what is occurring at the end with the ‘accordingly.” Examiner’s best guess at curing all 112 issues is the following suggestions for claim 11:
A data processing method for a system comprising an electronic device, and a server configured to execute a business execution system, comprising:
receiving user setting data by a processor of the server, wherein the electronic device comprises a plurality of heterogeneous business systems, and the heterogeneous business systems comprise a plurality of first application programing interfaces (APIs);
collecting, by the processor, definition data of a plurality of first APIs of the electronic device through a knowledge map module executed by the processor;
calculating, by the processor, the definition data to generate dependency relationship among the first APIs through the knowledge map module;
generating, by the processor, a business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule according to a plurality of fields of the user setting data and the dependency relationship through the knowledge map module, wherein the business indicator rule comprises invocation chain information;
executing, by the processor, the knowledge map module to execute invocation operations of the first APIs based on the invocation chain information;
setting, by the processor, a timing scheduling rule and a follow-up processing rule in the detection and execution rule according to the user setting data through the knowledge map module,
periodically creating, by the processor, a first task according to [[a]] the detection and execution rule, and obtaining an action number of the first task through a detection module executed by a processor, wherein the action number corresponds to a business indicator,
obtaining, by the processor, the invocation chain information in the detection and execution rule according to the action number, and executing the first task on the electronic device based on the invocation chain information through an execution module executed by the processor to generate a first execution result, comprising:
invoking, by the processor, the first APIs based on the invocation chain information according to a first input parameter of the first task to generate the execution result through the execution module;
determining, by the processor, whether the detection module creates a second task according to the detection and execution rule and the first execution result through the detection module, so that the execution module executes the second task to generate a second execution result;
accessing, by the processor, [[a]] the knowledge map module according to [[a]] the business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule to obtain the first input parameter through the execution module,
determining, by the processor, whether the first input parameter have a missing field according to a target invoked API;
when the first input parameter is missing, issuing, by the processor, a missing command to an action logic map unit through the execution module, so that the action logic map unit finds another field with matching meanings from the business indicator rule according to the missing field,
executing an invocation, by the processor, in advance to another field library system according to the another field through the execution module with the matching meaning, so as to obtain a parameter corresponding to the missing field; and
reconstructing, by the processor, a data structure of the first input parameter according to the obtained parameter through the execution module, and generating invocation chain information with the obtained parameter to the target invoked API to generate the execution result.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above.
Claims 5, 15 recite the limitation " a follow-up processing rule." However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as claim 1 already recited it. Examiner suggests reciting “the follow-up processing rule.”
Claims 8, 18 recite the limitation " a knowledge map module." However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as claim 1 already recited it. Examiner suggests reciting “the knowledge map module.”
Reasons for Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 USC 101
The claim 1 overcomes the 101 rejections based on Applicant’s Remarks pages 13-14 and because the claim is now : an electronic device, comprising a plurality of heterogeneous business systems, and the heterogeneous business systems comprise a plurality of first application programing interfaces (APIs); a server, connected to the electronic device, and configured to execute a business execution system, wherein the server comprises a memory, configured to store a plurality of modules and a detection and execution rule, wherein the modules further comprises a knowledge map module; a processor, coupled to the memory and an electronic device, configured to execute the modules, wherein the modules comprise a detection module and an execution module, wherein the processor executes the knowledge map module to collect definition data of a plurality of first APIs of the electronic device, calculate the definition data to generate dependency relationship among the first APIs; wherein the processor is configured to execute the execution module to access a knowledge map module according to a business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule to obtain the first input parameter, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the first input parameter have missing field according to a target invoked API, when the first input parameter is missing the execution module issues a missing command to an action logic map unit, so that the action logic map unit finds another field with matching meanings from the business indicator rule according to the missing field, execution module execute an invocation in advance to another field library system according to the another field, so as to obtain parameter corresponding to the missing field, the execution module reconstructs data structure of the first input parameter according to the obtained parameter, and generates invocation chain information accordingly. When viewing the claim as a whole, this when combined with the earlier limitations is viewed as a practical application under step 2a, prong 2, as the claim is improving another technology (e.g. computing technology) when viewing all the limitations listed above (See MPEP 2106.05a) and/or is viewed as a using a judicial exception in a meaningful way under MPEP 2106.05(e). The same reasons also apply to claim 11, which has similar limitations, as best understood in light of the 112 rejections above. Examiner notes that claim 11 still needs to positively recite each step as being performed by a computer as well, as in the suggestions provided above for overcoming the 112 rejections.
Reasons for Overcoming the 35 USC 103 Rejections
The following is a Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art and the 103 Rejection.
Claim 1 overcomes the prior art based on: 1) wherein the processor is configured to execute the knowledge map module to collect definition data of a plurality of first APIs of the electronic device, calculate the definition data to generate dependency relationship among the first APIs.; 2) generate a business indicator rule in the detection and execution rule according to a plurality of fields of user setting data and the dependency relationship, wherein the business indicator rule comprises invocation chain information and the invocation chain information is configured to execute invocation operations of the first APIs; 3) wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the first input parameter have missing field according to a target invoked API, wherein the first input parameter is missing, the execution module issues a missing command to an action logic map unit, so that the action logic map unit finds another field with matching meanings from the business indicator rule according to the missing field, the execution module executes an invocation in advance to another field library system according to the another field, so as to obtain parameter corresponding to the missing field, the execution module reconstructs data structure of the first input parameter according to the obtained parameter, and generates invocation chain information accordingly.
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations and overcomes the prior art for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are dependent from claims 1, 11.
Closest prior art:
Hakman (US 2016/0162819) - disclosing API and a workflow orchestration engine (See par 40); and a workflow orchestration engine 602 (See par 98, 101) and textual tokens with hierarchical relationships structure for task items (see par 111)
Tai (US 2021/0379764) – discloses calling one RPA (Robotic Process Automation) workflow from another RPA workflow (See par 62) and using APIs (See par 75-76)
Xiong (US 2012/00956956) – using report source data APIs to provide business intelligence (See par 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN R GOLDBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7949. The examiner can normally be reached 830AM - 430PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/IVAN R GOLDBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619