DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s response filed 4/14/26
As indicated in Applicant’s response, claims 1-2, 10-11, 16-17-18 have been amended, and claims 5-6, 12 cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-20 are pending a next office action.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 significantly more. Claim(s) 11 is/are directed to Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following 2 step analysis.
Step I: Claim 11 is directed to a method/process category
Step II A:
Prong One:
The claim recites steps of “identifying” (inter-component relationships), “parsing” (composition files metadata, values of variables), “determining” (component is logically related), “generating” (solution composition recommendations) and these are construed as steps descriptive of a user being presented via a computer interface, expression of a component or component relationships, metadata whereby the user can derive – mentally parsing - further metadata or variables or relationship among them, which are typical processes that can be performed in a human mind, or via use of pen/paper to represent the data being generated, re-organized as result of the mental processes in the mind of the human. The steps of obtaining information and deriving data in form of pen/paper expression of relationships or recommendations therefore, via steps of identifying, parsing, determining and generating (recommendation) from above, amount to what the circuits courts defined as Mental Process subgroup of a Abstract Idea type Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.04(a)
Prong Two:
The elements recited as “receiving” (instance of a component, via an interface), “populating” (via the interface, a module the supports the component) can be viewed as extra-solution pre-activity steps that acquire and preprocess the received data into a form destined for use by the mental processes identified in prong One from above. The additional elements of “receiving” (a component), “populating” (a solution comprising a component), and “component with a linked variable” are extra-solution activities or mere descriptive characterization of component comprised with the receiving/populating step and therefore cannot be viewed as elements that improve upon the technical field of analyzing data and expressing recommendation based on its analysis. The additional elements from above do not describe a particular solution or novelty to the common scenario of acquiring, formatting data, parsing the data and reorganizing it and generating one result thereof (such as outputting a pen/paper based suggestion). Hence, these extra-solution activities of receiving and populating cannot be seen as transforming the Abstract Idea of prong One into a non-conventional technical improvement over the field of analyzing data via use of a computer tool, interface. The above extra-solution activities are also viewed as well-understood routines – MPEP 2106.05(d) - of acquiring data, thus cannot translate the Abstract Idea of prong One into a Practical Application. MPEP 2106.05 (a) (c) (g)
Step IIB
The additional elements of “command line interface” as a means or a tool by which the steps of acquiring, populating are performed cannot be viewed as elements that improve upon the technical field of analyzing data and expressing recommendation based on its analysis. Nor can the “command line interface tool” be viewed as implementation details that supports a novel improvement of a computer field about acquiring data and deriving relationship based on its analytical processing. The element recited as "command-line tool" is viewed as a computer interface by which information is being presented for mental analysis, derivation or re-arrangement; and in consideration of the elements as arranged in the claim, the receiving, populating steps can be viewed as well-known activities that bear no novelty to the acts identified in the Judicial Exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) whereas the use of generic computer or "command line tool" by which the user can interface with presented data can also be mapped with findings in MPEP §2106.05 (d) where use of generic computer for data analysis is common practices or routines.
Therefore, the "additional elements" under step IIB when evaluated along with the Judicial
Exception from step 2A are deemed not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea itself.
Claim 11 is deemed unpatentable under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
Claims 1 and 16 is/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 significantly more. Claims 1 and 16 is/are directed to Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following 2 step analysis
Eligibility of claim 1.
Step I: the claim is directed to a product category.
Step IIA
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites steps of “identify” (inter-component relationships), “parse” (composition files metadata, values of variables), “determine” (component is logically related), “generate” (solution composition recommendations) and these are construed as steps descriptive of activities that can be performed in a human mind (identifying, parsing, determining) or via use of pen/paper (for presenting/recommending a solution). The steps of obtaining information and deriving data in form of pen/paper expression of relationships or recommendations therefore, via steps of identifying, parsing, determining and generating (recommendation) from above, amount to what the circuits courts defined as Mental Process subgroup of an Abstract Idea type Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) Prong Two:
The elements recited as “receive” (instance of a component, via an interface), “populate” (via the interface, a module the supports the component) can be viewed as extra-solution pre-activity steps that acquire and preprocess the received data into a form destined for use by the mental processes identified in Prong One. Thus, the extra-solution activities of receiving and populating cannot be seen as transforming the Abstract Idea (of prong One) into a non-conventional technical improvement over the field of analyzing data via use of a computer tool, interface. The above extra-solution activities are also viewed as well-understood routines of acquiring data for an Abstract Idea, thus cannot translate the Abstract Idea of prong One into a Practical Application. MPEP 2106.05 (a) (c) (g)
Step IIB
The additional elements of “receive” (a component), “populate” (a solution comprising a component), and “component with a linked variable” are mere descriptive characterization of component comprised with the receiving/populating step and therefore cannot be viewed as elements that improve upon the technical field of analyzing data and expressing recommendation based on its analysis. Nor can the “command line interface tool” be viewed as implementation details that supports a novel improvement of a computer field about acquiring data and deriving relationship based on its analytical processing; instead, the "command-line tool" is viewed as a computer interface by which information is being presented for mental analysis, derivation or re-arrangement; and in consideration of the elements as arranged in the claim, the receiving, populating steps can be viewed as well-known activities that bear no novelty to the acts identified in the Judicial Exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) whereas the use of generic computer tool ( "command line tool") by which the user can interface with presented data can also be mapped with findings in MPEP §2106.05 (d) where use of generic computer for data analysis is common practices or routines
The "additional elements" under step IIB when evaluated along with the Judicial
Exception (from step IIA) are deemed not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea itself.
Claim 1 is therefore non-eligible under 35 § 101 statute.
Eligibility of claim 16
Step I: claim 16 is directed to a computer medium/product category.
Step IIA
Prong One:
Claim 16 recites steps of “identify” (inter-component relationships), “parsing” (composition files metadata, values of variables), “determining” (component is logically related), “generate” (solution composition recommendations) and these are construed as steps descriptive of activities that can be performed in a human mind (identifying, parsing, determining) or via use of pen/paper (for presenting/recommending a solution); and as set forth above for eligibility of claim 1, these steps amount to what the circuits courts defined as Mental Process subgroup of an Abstract Idea type Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.04(a)
Prong Two:
The elements recited as “receive” (instance of a component, via an interface), “populate” (via the interface, a module the supports the component) can be viewed as extra-solution pre-activity steps that acquire and preprocess the received data into a form destined for use by the mental processes identified in Prong One. Thus, the extra-solution activities of receiving and populating cannot be seen as transforming the Abstract Idea of prong One into a non-conventional technical improvement over the field of analyzing data via use of a computer tool, interface. The above extra-solution activities are also viewed as well-understood routines – MPEP 2106.05(d) - of acquiring data for an Abstract Idea, thus cannot translate the Abstract Idea of prong One into a Practical Application. MPEP 2106.05 (a) (c) (g)
Step IIB:
The additional elements of “receive” (a component), “populate” (a solution comprising a component), and “component with a linked variable” are mere descriptive characterization of component comprised with the receiving/populating step and therefore cannot be viewed as elements that improve upon the technical field of analyzing data and expressing recommendation based on its analysis. Nor can the “command line interface tool” be viewed as implementation details that supports a novel improvement of a computer field about acquiring data and deriving relationship based on its analytical processing. The element recited as "command-line tool" is viewed as a computer interface by which information is being presented for mental analysis, derivation or re-arrangement; and in consideration of the elements as arranged in the claim, the receiving, populating steps can be viewed as well-known activities that bear no novelty to the acts identified in the Judicial Exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) whereas the use of generic computer or "command line tool" by which the user can interface with presented data can also be mapped with findings in MPEP §2106.05 (d) where use of generic computer for data analysis is common practices or routines
The "additional elements" under step IIB when evaluated along with the Judicial
Exception from step 2A are deemed not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea itself.
In all, claim 16 is deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
Eligibility under step IIB of dependent claims.
Claim 7 or 13 recites action of "parse" definitions of a component or command by processors, which constitutes a pre-activity to the "identifying" or "generating" step of claim 1 or 11, which is insufficient to make claim 1 or 11 to amount to much more than a Judicial Exception.
Claim 8 or 14 recites processor to "generate" a graph with nodes and edges, and as such, when viewed as a mere post-activity step, fails to upconvert the "identifying", “parsing”, “determining” or "generating" step of claim 1 or 11 to make the Abstract Idea much more than a itself.
Claim 2 or 17, recites composition files in terms of it being a resource, a provider, input/output variables or relationship type data. Static description of a component fails to transform the "identifying" “parsing” “determining or "generating" step of the base claim into a Practical Application or to upconvert the Abstract Idea into significantly much more than itself.
Claim 3 or 19 recites receiving user command identifying a global variable or user-defined
value therefor, and this pre-activity step amounts to insignificant addition to the step of
"identifying", “parsing”, “determining”, “generating" by the mental process deficiency in the base claim.
Claim 4 or 20 recites receiving user command identifying a non-global variable or user-
defined value therefor, and this pre-activity step amounts to insignificant addition to the step of
"identifying" by the mental process deficiency in the base claim.
Claim 5 recites description of input and output variables and this cannot render the Judicial
Exception of the base claim to amount to much more than it already does
Claim 10 or 18 recites tool/medium of claim 1 or 16 to "parse" (files), "identify" (second
component) and "recommend" (connectivity between component); and as such, the parsing is
construed as pre-activity, whereas the identifying and recommending steps, when evaluated within
the whole claim elements, are construed as activities that can be achieved and retained inside one
human mind. Claim 10 or 18 per the context of the respective claim fails to integrate claim 1 or 16
into a Practical Application.
In all, claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13-20 are rejected under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
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, 8, 11, 14, 16 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond et al, CN 109564505 (translation) 03-25-2022, 32 pgs (herein Hammond) in view of Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury), and Pyo Sung Min et al, KR 20230097976A, (translation) 7-03-2023, 19 pgs (herein Pyo_SM).
As per claim 1, Hammond discloses a command line interface tool for generating a solution comprising one or more components, the command line interface tool (e.g. AI system include at least a command line interface, client-side command line, server-side command line - pg. 17) comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive, from a user, an instance of a component (basic network of the intelligent processing
node, abbreviation "BRAIN" - pg. 13; command line configured to request information through a
prompt new BRAIN - pg. 17; CLI include initiating and naming BRAIN - pg. 17 – Note0: a
component provided from the user as representing an instance of a network abbreviated as "BRAIN" reads on instance of a component entered by a user into an interactive tool);
populate the solution (loader 521 configured to load training data database - pg. 14;
learner module can access the previous problem previously constructed AI model storage collection of the solution statistic database - bottom pg. 6, top pg 7) with at least one module (predictor module, AI generator module, configurator module - pg. 7; one or more AI engine module - pg. 5) that supports the instance of the component (basis network of the intelligent processing node, BRAIN - pg. 13);
identify inter-component relationships (What AI engine to know? programming capture
concept and the mutual relationship and forming a directed graph of concept - pg. 9; steering mental model in the InklingTM is also the AI model models the problem domain by coding the basic concept and the mutual relationship - pg. 8; teaching programming language InklingTM code – pg. 6) comprising the instance of the component (artificial intelligence network abbreviation is "BRAIN" - pg. 13),
wherein identifying the inter-component relationships (teaching programming language InklingTM – pg. 6; teaching programming language can be compiled into definition field of the structured data object … and instantiated to its own sub-concept node – top pg. 17; use the teaching programming language to define a mental model … define … one or more concept nodes using a teaching programming language – pg. 23; use of the teaching programming language … defining one or more connection concept nodes in the mental model … author can define the input and output of the mental model – pg. 23) comprises:
determining whether the second component is logically related to (see Note2 from below) the component, the second component being logically related (see pg. 24 per Note2 from below) when the component and the second component have at least one linked variable value comprising an output variable value of the component being used as an input variable value of the second component (use of the teaching programming language … defining one or more connection concept nodes in the mental model … and subsequent output acceptance concept node to define each concept node … author can define the input and output of the mental model – pg. 23 - Note2: use of teaching programming language from a designer/author to package relationships among nodes or concept nodes of a mental AI model for configuring a AI model training according to which, each of the one or more blocks thereof is configured to receive input from any one or more of the one or more concept nodes of the mental mode and provide output to one or more concept node of the one or more flow nodes – see pg. 24 – reads on component inter-relationship determination/identification in regard to whether a second component is logically related to a first component, the logical linkage thereof identifiable in terms of variable value comprising an output variable value of the first component being used as an input variable value of the second component; and so, based on input- output relationship among nodes or flow nodes of the mental model as defined/authored via effect of the teaching programming language); and
generate solution composition recommendations (e.g. mental model comprises one or more concept nodes, architect module propose a neural network layout from the assembly code - pg. 3; propose neural network layout for building and training determined by the features of the code - pg. 7) based on the identified inter-component relationships (e.g. one or more courses for respectively AI models on one or more of the concept nodes - pg. 3; capture concept and the
mutual relationship - pg. 9; learner module can parse archived database of trained model, known
past similar problem and proposed solution and other sources to suggest an optimal neural
network topology - pg. 16).
Hammond does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the inter-component relationships comprises
parsing one or more solution composition files comprising metadata with the component, the metadata identifying values of output variables of the component that are used as values of input variables of a second component.
However, parsing configuration files or markup descriptive files to extract metadata and
reference from one component to other objects or components of relevant or similar type has been
shown in Viondury with access and referencing to substitutable resources of the same type (para
0056), the pointing to replaceable, alternate resources being an enhancement implemented with
XML/markup language or description (Fig. 1-2) file format that embodies link relocation and
reliable referenced object linkage (para 0053-0054) and unique locator indicating a server object
(para 0020); hence parsing a composition file and its structured metadata to determine from a current component, a second component logically related to thereto via value setting that references the other/second component is recognized.
Pyo_SM discloses the inter-connectivity relationships among nodes of an artificial intelligence model in that concept of input node and output node is relative as any node in an output relationship with one node may have an input relationship with another node and vice versa(top pg. 10); that is, the value of the output node may be determined based on data input to the input node such that one or more input nodes are interconnected by respective links to one output node, the output node set to a link corresponding to values input to input nodes connected to the output node and respective input nodes as part of input node and output node relationship in the AI model (middle pg. 10)
Based on use of descriptive or teaching language in which concepts are interpreted as nodes (pg. 9) in association with processing a mental model in Hammond (pg. 8) where this teaching language defines blocks of the mental model as capable of receiving input from preceding nodes and providing output to following nodes (see pg. 23; see Note2 from above), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the learner/acquisition of descriptive information in Hammond 's CLI tool so that identifying of inter-component relationships by this module would comprise parsing the one or more solution composition files – e.g. configuration files or markup descriptive files in Viondury or InklingTM teaching language in Hammond - in light of metadata associated with a given component comprised therein, in order to determine, based on the parsing, whether values of output variables of the component that are used as values of input variables of a second component - set forth above as a) using markup format and tag referencing in Viondury; b) the input/output relative relationship between input nodes and output nodes of a AI model per Pyo_SM or c) per the output of one being input to the other per a teaching programming language in Hammond; because
solution composition file provided in portable and highly structured format as set forth
above, would promulgate leverage of any import/export need into target developments, facilitating
cross-platform transport as well as language and concepts format capture/encoding adaptable for
parsing, in the sense that
a) this particular knowledge/information implemented in portable and structural format can
be adapted for use across multiple environments in which elements and data provided in a given file layout or structure can be parsed, isolated and extracted, collected and/or grouped, filtered or
processed for a design arrangement, application purpose in terms of functional or abstract model,
workflow layout, and parameterized hierarchy/tree;
b) the in-depth parsing and querying of concepts and language node provided in this format
would not only assist in establishing of logically related data/components or objects referred to by
explicit linkage with which to build and augment model component or modular code, to exploit
inter-dependency among elements or objects with which to refer to/fetch or seek substitute or
alternate thereto in building a multi-concept, multi-node flow, but would also identify or suggest
where alternate resources or providers thereof can be located, e.g. navigating identifier type of
location (service URL) for additional resources in indicated location ID or domain provided in
markup portable format.
As per claim 8, Hammond discloses command line interface tool of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate a graph (forming a directed graph of concepts - pg. 9) that represents connections between two or more components, the graph comprising:
nodes that represent the components; and edges that represent connections between the components (architect module may generate a lower instance of the directed graph of the node - pg. 15, top)
As per claim 11, Hammond discloses a method for performing solution composition, the method comprising:
receiving, by a command line interface tool, an instance of a component;
populating, by the command line interface tool, a solution with at least one module that
supports the instance of the component;
identifying, by the command line interface tool, inter-component relationships comprising the instance of the component,
wherein identifying the inter-component relationships comprises:
parsing one or more solution composition files comprising metadata associated with
the component, the metadata identifying values of output variables of the component that are
used as values of input variables of a second component; and
determining whether the second component is logically related to the component, the
second component being logically related when the component and the second component
have at least one linked variable value comprising an output variable value of the component
being used as an input variable value of the second component; and
generating, by the command line interface tool, solution composition recommendations based on the identified inter-component relationships.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 1)
As per claim 14, Hammond discloses method of claim 11, further comprising generating a graph that represents connections between two or more components, the graph comprising:
nodes that represent the components; and edges that represent connections between the components.
(refer to rejection of claim 8)
As per claim 16, Hammond discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors for performing solution composition, cause the one or more processors to:
receive from a user, an instance of a component;
populate a solution with at least one module that supports the instance of the component;
identify inter-component relationships comprising the instance of the component,
wherein identifying the inter-component relationships comprises:
parsing one or more solution composition files comprising metadata associated with
the component, the metadata identifying values of output variables of the component that are
used as values of input variables of a second component; and
determining whether the second component is logically related to the component, the
second component being logically related when the component and the second component
have at least one linked variable value comprising an output variable value of the component
being used as an input variable value of the second component; and
generate solution composition recommendations based on the identified inter-component
relationships.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 1)
Claims 2, 7, 13, 17 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond et al, CN 109564505 (translation) 03-25-2022, 32 pgs (herein Hammond) in view of Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury), and Pyo Sung Min et al, KR 20230097976A, (translation) 7-03-2023, 19 pgs (herein Pyo_SM), further in view of Nawab et al, USPubN: 2023/0334365 (herein Nawab), and Gursha et al, WO 2023200741, 4-10-2023, 64 pgs (herein Gursha)
As per claim 2, Hammond does not explicitly disclose command line interface tool of claim 1, wherein the component comprises the one or more solution composition files, wherein the one or more solution composition files comprise:
a directory of one or more logically related resources used in the solution;
a directory storing data that identifies providers of the one or more logically related resources;
a directory of input variables to be defined in the solution;
a directory of output variables to be defined in the solution; and
a directory of data that corresponds to the inter-component relationships.
Hammond discloses use of InklingTM document to include facts and strategies concepts (pg. 8), which can be represented by a mental model depicting a basic concept (object, role, human) set with mutual relationship into a more complex multi-concept according to a need, a policy or a
strategy, the multi-concept mental model outputted in form of hierarchy of concepts (pg. 9) for
facilitating generation code blocks that reflect the arrangement of the multi-concept nodes or flow of nodes (see pg. 24), as part of the training of test data fed into the model
Hence, file that includes concepts such as facts and strategy elements which can be represented as an abstraction of multi-concept relationships or complex combination thereof, in
terms of mental model flow of nodes or hierarchy thereof entails file expressing data that
corresponds to inter-component relationships for use in generating training code.
As for a logically related resources for implementing a code, Nawab discloses data
acquisition engine, purported for AI/ML analytics within an analytics platform, equipped with an
upload directory in a file system of a storage infrastructure based on which to upload (via APIs), and store/save operations and items acquired from sources like servers, DAS and SANs, the saved items to be used by a ingestion engine in coordinating processing resources and suitable parameters for runtime submission and parameterizations. Hence, use of a directory to store/save remotely acquired items for use by an ingestion module so that file resources and suitable parameters can be submitted for parameterizing runtime of an AI/ML application entails a file directory configured to contain one or more logically related resources used in implementation of a solution.
VionDury discloses document and resource packaging being archived for containing dependent resources under a suitable directory structure (para 0054-0055) secured with
long-term stability endowed with access and referencing to substitutable resources of the same type (para 0056), the pointing to replaceable resources being an enhancement implemented with markup language or description (Fig. 1-2) file format that embodies link relocation and reliable referenced object linkage (para 0053-0054), the markup document providing unique identifier for path and address of a server via a URL (para 0020); hence implementation of a directory structure to store link relocation and long-term stable referenced object linkage in form of markup format/file entails directory file embodying/capturing one or more logically related resources or data that corresponds to the inter-component relationships for use in implementing a problem solution.
Further, Gursha discloses a folder-based management of content and metadata associated
with a search-optimization tool operative with transfer of files (e.g. ZIP or XML format) for
import/use by a recommendation tool that leverage artificial intelligence or ML algorithms in
identifying relationships between the files (para 0064-0065) and assets to provide suggestions, the
latter converting content from folders and files into data supportive of a URL tool in form of file-
based URLs or directory style URLs (e.g. directory-style URL such as /basketball// server may
respond - para 0054-0055), the URL tool providing consistent URLs in accordance to the folder management and metadata incorporated therefrom (para 0066-0067) the contents of a URL or server locator assisting in optimizing depth search/optimization engine (para 0055-0056) and as expansion that can be used to deploy service of a cloud system (para 0068)
Hence, processing transferred XML files and convert their content into URL type directory in form of consistent URLs indicative of server locations that include metadata and folder-based
content in assisting deployment of service code or search engine entails directory storing data that
identifies providers of the one or more logically related resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement relationships of components and modules in Hammond so that one or more solution composition files provided with the discovery of components and analysis of their mutual relationships would comprise
a directory of data that corresponds to the inter-component relationships as set forth in Nawab and VionDury;
a directory of one or more logically related resources used in the solution -as set forth in
VionDury and Nawab;
a directory storing data that identifies providers of the one or more logically related
resources - as in Gursha creating of directory style URLs and URL indicative of a server in
Viondury; because
knowledge data or application-related content (e.g. solution type content) that has been
processed and administered into a file system or directory store as configuration type data, logical
assets and related metadata as well as reference to various dependency type and other file records as set forth above, when structured in format that facilitates their internal management, their administrative update and stability, import/export leverage and content parsing, would enable
elements and data provided in a given layout or structure to be isolated and extracted, collected
and/or grouped, filtered or processed for a designer arrangement, functional or abstract model layout for programmatic parameterization;
the parsing of file-based constructs further aiding in the establishing of logically related data and/or components with which to build code and model, inter-dependency among elements or objects with which to refer to/fetch or seek substitute thereto in building a multi-concept, multi-node flow, as well as identifying or suggesting where alternate resources or providers thereof can be retrieved; e.g. in navigating identifier type of location (server URL) in the directory of knowledge domain and metadata referencing provided in files portable format.
As per claim 7, Hammond does not explicitly disclose command line interface tool of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to
parse one or more directories comprising definitions of the component and the at least one module, wherein the definitions comprise one or more commands supported by the component.
But use of files prestored in file system or directory of information so that code forming in a command line tool would yield SW commands that correspond to functionality of a component or node– referred herein as (*) - of an artificial intelligence model as in Hammond has been further illustrated with the teachings by VionDury in form of directory file embodying/capturing one or more logically related resources or data that corresponds to the inter-component relationships for use in implementing a problem solution; and in Gursha in terms of parsed contents of a URL or server locator so to assist in SW implementation in optimizing depth search/optimization engine; as well as in Nawab file directory which is configured to contain one or more logically related resources used in implementation of a solution SW (refer to rationale in claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement use of remote storage and file system storage of
configuration information associated with the learning and model abstraction stage in Hammond so that the acquisition of information from solution composition files at the command-line tool would parse files from one or more directories thereby to identify and extract definitions of a given component (and/or the at least one module), wherein the definitions comprise programmatic
composition for creating and realizing one or more SW commands supported by the component
included with the intended target model/solution functionality; because
definitions and metadata pre-established in configuration files in terms of type setting,
naming and programmatic formation of variable, parameters would help code forming to generate
proper construct and generation of API/calls written in a specific language, which when translated
with a language compliant compiler would generate API calls or workflow commands that can be
reliably executed or deployed for realizing runtime aspects of a model as intended by Hammond's
system which basically builds its intended software from acquiring of past learning and definitions
from pre-established solution files obtained from repository records or file system directories.
As per claim 13, refer to rationale of claim 7 from above.
As per claim 17, Hammond discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the component comprises the one or more solution composition files, wherein the one or more solution composition files comprise:
a directory of one or more logically related resources used in the solution;
a directory storing data that identifies providers of the one or more logically related resources;
a directory of input variables to be defined in the solution;
a directory of output variables to be defined in the solution; and
a directory of data that corresponds to the inter-component relationships.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 2)
Claims 3-4, 19-20 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond et al, CN 109564505 (translation) 03-25-2022, 32 pgs (herein Hammond) in view of Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury), and Pyo Sung Min et al, KR 20230097976A, (translation) 7-03-2023, 19 pgs (herein Pyo_SM), further in view of Nawab et al, USPubN: 2023/0334365 (herein Nawab), Gursha et al, WO 2023200741, 4-10-2023, 64 pgs (herein Gursha) and Chang et al, TX I810419, (translation), 08-01-2023, 14 pgs (herein Chang)
As per claims 3-4, Hammond does not explicitly disclose command line interface tool of claim 2,
(i) wherein defining the input variables and the output variables comprises receiving a user command identifying global variables, wherein a global variable has a same user-defined value across all components within the solution.
(ii) wherein defining the input variables and the output variables comprises receiving a user command identifying non-global variables, wherein a non-global variable has a unique user-defined value in each component within the solution.
It is well-understood that global variables when declared are variable instances destined to acquire runtime values across all programmatic components or functions declared with such variables within the wide runtime context; whereas local, non-global variables are variable instances destined to acquire runtime values for components or functions declared with such variables within a more definite, restrictive, local runtime context.
Chang, for instance, discloses input and output variables of functions and methods declared as user- defined parameters in code formation for a system of solving behavioral deviation of processing equipment, via use of a numerical correction model for determining a range of dimensions standard (pg. 3) or tolerance range (pg. 5) with which an error can be inspected, detected and for which a correction parameter can be applied (pg. 6); the correction using a parameter file accorded to the computer numerical control (CNC) programmed with SW, where preferably, user-defined parameters are selected among variables that include local variables to adjust local processing parameters of the equipment, and global variables used to adjust global processing parameters of the equipment via macros and corrective model program (pg. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement program parameters in the file-based implementation of a solution in Hammond so that input/output variables associated programming code and training using the command-line tool would include identifying:
1) user-defined global variables, wherein a global variable has a same user-defined value
across all components within the solution
2) user-defined non-global or local variables, wherein a non-global variable has a unique
user-defined value in each component within the solution; the user defined global and non-global
variables as set forth in Chang; because
program destined for executing implementation of a design includes environmental settings
and local settings, and use of defined variables by the programmer to respond to demand of
respective settings in accordance to a given programming language in form of either global
parameters or non-global parameters would enable optimization of runtime resources, cost reduction of memory space in that local variables as declared by the programmer are destined to operate (take on values) within a short-lived context of local calls defined with them, whereas global variables as declared by the programmer are intended to store values instances across larger environment contexts of global calls defined with them throughout the runtime, where need to maintain global values in runtime memory is expected to outlast the short-lived context of localized calls whose memory portion will be expunged when each local call terminates.
As per claims 19-20, refer to rejection of claims 3-4, respectively.
Claims 9-10, 15, 18 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond et al, CN 109564505 (translation) 03-25-2022, 32 pgs (herein Hammond) in view of Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury), and Pyo Sung Min et al, KR 2023/0097976A, (translation) 7-03-2023, 19 pgs (herein Pyo_SM), further in view of Nawab et al, USPubN: 2023/0334365 (herein Nawab), Gursha et al, WO 2023200741, 4-10-2023, 64 pgs (herein Gursha) and Shah et al, USPubN: 2004/0034497 (herein Shah)
As per claims 9-10, Hammond does not explicitly disclose command line interface tool of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
(i) receive, from the user, a command to remove an auto-connection between two or more
components; and modify the solution based on the received user command.
(ii) wherein generating solution composition recommendations further causes the one or more processors to:
recommend that the component and the second component within the solution be connected.
As for (i) and (ii)
Shah discloses a UI rendering of diagrams associated with implementation of specialized
solutions for industries, communications, electronics etc. (para 0301), in form of a measurement
system designer (MSD) environment that assist the user in designing and creating diagrams
connectivity to implement the measurement experiment as intended (para 0011) where the MSD
environment is able to automatically determine wiring relationships (para 0073) and automate
creation of the programmatic entity therefor (para 0079-0080) where certain portion of the diagrams (icons adding) may be automatically created based on the automatic detection (para 0093) where icons auto-arranging can be made automatically to improve the appearance (para 0096) or alternately, the user can be prompted to fulfill the manual routing of a wiring/signal connection (para 0389, 0401) as option proposed by the MSD, wherein, upon request received from the user, deletion of a direct connection (para 0390) and removal or an icon/component (para 0178, 0194; user interact with the tree view remove components - para 0195; para 0216, 0224, 0226; connectable element selected, the graphical indication be removed - para 0243) can be also performed interactively.
Hence, modifying a graphical representation of solution model upon user request to add or via an automated recommendation for a user option/prompt to remove an auto-connection between components being auto-arranged and graphically presented is recognized.
Therefore, based on obviousness in the use of composition files to identify inter-component
relationships and mutual dependency on logically related resources for a solution based of parsing
the files (refer to obviousness of claim 2), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement connection between nodes or
components of the AI model in Hammond so that command line interface tool is configured to
1) modify the solution based on the received user command, such as command to remove an auto-connection between two or more components - as set forth in the auto-arrangement of icons in Shah diagram UI and user request to delete a connection or an icon therein;
2) generate a recommendation (e.g. prompting a user via an option) associated a UI detection that a second component within the solution is logically related to a given component; and recommend that the given component and the second component within the solution be connected - as set forth with the automatic detection in Shah MSD tool generating a prompt for the user to add a connection, from effect of parsing one or more solution composition files comprising metadata associated with the component by which mutual resource relationship and connection dependency can be identified as set forth above; because
interactive tool and GUI options provided therewith to enable automatic linking or connecting graphical components or icons would obviate constant seeking of user or developer
approval notably when the tool is relying upon consulting knowledge set in configuration files that securely establish which resource or components are to be linked or interconnected to another resources or component of the solution model under development; and capability of the tool to listen to user request or interaction in order to comply to request to add/remove a connection would augment usability and user role by tool, whereas capability to recommend or propose the user with a action such as to add a connection or to link two related nodes - on basis of consulting knowledge information files - would further leverage or expose flexible support by the tool, in terms of responsive or adaptative recommendation by the tool – as set forth above - by which to further promulgate, enhance upon the user intents, notably those considered beneficial by the intelligent modules of tool within the course of building components or graphical manipulation of concepts or actions associated with the building.
As per claim 15 and 18, Hammond discloses method of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving, by the command line interface tool and from the user, a command to remove an auto-connection between two or more components; and
modifying the solution based on the received user command;
wherein generating solution composition recommendations further causes the one or more processors to:
recommend that the component and the second component within the solution be connected.
(all of which having been addressed in the respective rationale of claims 9-10)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Following are the Examiner’s observations in regard thereto.
Applicants have submitted that a human mind cannot execute a command line tool and parse files to extract metadata in terms of technical information such as logical relationships between components wherein output variable value of a first component is being used as input variable value of the second component as claimed, and that the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn (Applicants Remarks top pg. 8). The activities such as identifying relationships and parsing received information (files) to thereby identify metadata related to input, output variables fall into the well-known activities of a human mind and analytic capabilities provided therewith, notably when the expression associated with the identifying or parsing as recited does not include detailed implementation of computer circuitry or low memory input/output, or any hints of in-depth processing or algorithmic execution. Thus, the acts of identifying, parsing and determining as claimed are construed in light of their high level of semantic generality. As such, the steps of identifying, parsing, determining and generating a solution recommendation as observed from the Amendment have been assessed as activities that can be done via a human mind or via use of pen/paper; therefore, identification of an Abstract Idea type of Judicial Exception is being made and as a result, a § 101 type rejection is being issued. The Applicant allegation to the contrary is deemed largely inconclusive.
Applicants have submitted based on the added limitations (partly from claims 5-6) the independent claims are now in such state that not only Hammond fails to disclose or suggest, but references such as Nawab, Viondury, Gursha and Gorrono are also found as failing to remedy to Hammond’s deficiencies, notably in regard to features such as parsing metadata and use of command line tool to extract metadata in relevance to “linked variable value comprising output variable of the component being used as input variable value of a second component” , in regard to which, no corresponding teaching by Viondury, Gorrono has been found (Applicants Remarks pg. 8 bottom, pg. 9)
The amended language in the independent claims has been addressed with one or more adjusted ground(s) of rejection, and any allegation provided to raise patentability merits of the added features would be deemed largely MOOT in view of this adjusted grounds of rejection.
In all, the claims stand rejected as set forth above by the Office Action and changes thereto which has been necessitated by the Amendment.
Conclusion
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 Tuan A Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-3735. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM/Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Chat Do can be reached on (571)272-3721.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3735 ( for non-official correspondence - please consult Examiner before using) or 571-273-8300 ( for official correspondence) or redirected to customer service at 571-272-3609.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
/Tuan A Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
June 06, 2026
Prosecution Insights