Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 9 and 17 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 9 and 17 similarly recites “a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format, wherein determining the mapping comprises selectively, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one; or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one; translating, by a second machine learning model, a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format; and generating, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format, wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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 claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “wherein determining the mapping comprises selectively, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “selectively mapping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may selectively map, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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 claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “modeling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may implement a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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 claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “applying logic” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may apply rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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 claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “translating, by a second machine learning model, a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format; and” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “translating (in writing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may translate a mapping requirements specification (MRS) into code executable by a computer processor for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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 claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 9 and 17 recite additional elements such as “generating, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 9 and 17 recite additional elements such as “wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 10 and 18 recite additional elements such as “the first machine learning model is a language model that determines the mapping based on natural language descriptions of the source and destination fields”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 11 and 19 recite additional elements such as “the language model is a conditional transformer language model that controllably determines the mapping based on the natural language descriptions”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4, 12 and 20 recite additional elements such as “the MRS includes a natural language description of context-specific requirements, and wherein the second machine learning model is a language model that translates the natural language description of context-specific requirements into code executable by the processor”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5 and 13 recite additional elements such as “the language model is a conditional transformer language model that controllably translates the natural language descriptions of context-specific requirements”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 14 recite additional elements such as “the context-specific requirements are specific to system requirements of a computer system of a predetermined entity that exchanges documents formatted according to one or more EDI formats”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 7 and 15 of “detecting a plurality of alternative paths mapping one source field of the document formatted according to the first EDI format to two or more destination fields of the document formatted according to the second EDI format and automatically selecting one of the plurality of alternative paths, and wherein the method further includes:” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may detect a plurality of alternative paths mapping one source field of the document formatted according to the first EDI format to two or more destination fields of the document formatted according to the second EDI format and automatically selecting one of the plurality of alternative paths with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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 claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 7 and 15 recite additional elements such as “presenting a schematic of the mapping to a user via a user interface”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 7 and 15 of “revising the mapping in response to user input via the user interface, wherein the user input revises the mapping by selecting a different one of the plurality of alternate paths” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “revising (changing the mapping)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may revise the mapping in response to user input via the user interface, wherein the user input revises the mapping by selecting a different one of the plurality of alternate paths with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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 claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 8 and 16 recite additional elements such as “a specific source field is mapped to a corresponding destination field using rule-based logic in response to determining that there is an unambiguous, single path between the specific source and corresponding destination fields s”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Mai (US PGPub 20140136961), in view of Moyers (US PGPub 20220100948), and further in view of Fabijancic (US Patent 11269822) failed to disclose of a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format, wherein determining the mapping comprises selectively, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one; or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one; translating, by a second machine learning model, a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format; and generating, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format, wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Mai, Moyers and Fabijancic discloses of a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format, translating, by a second machine learning model, a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format; and generating, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format, wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic.
However, the prior-art, Mai, Moyers and Fabijancic failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one; or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one” in the claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Mai, Moyers and Fabijancic failed to teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 9 and the product of claim 17 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1, 9 and 17 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the first argument that the amendment of the remark on pages 11-12 would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner would like to point out that
The amendment such as “based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one; or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one” is determined as a mental process, and in order to be patent-eligible under Step 2A Prong 2, two requirements should be met to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193