DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed 01/4/2024.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are submitted for prosecution on merits.
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 an Abstract Idea type of Judicial Exception. 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 recites a method being a statutory category of subject matter.
Step II, prong A:
Claim 11 recites method steps of “identifying” (component relationships) and “generating” (composition recommendations). As a whole, the “method” steps can be descriptive of a user being presented via a computer interface, expression of a component, where the user can derive component instance relationships, so that based thereon, form composition of a recommendation; and this scenario is similar to a user being presented with stock information from a screen, where the information is being analyzed, so that any derivation, rearrangement or composition by the user made on basis of information thus received amounts to activities of a mental process, as no algorithm or particular device is needed where a human reorganize internally the received information, or derive conclusions or finding based thereon. The steps of identifying and generating composition recommendations data are construed as activities that are directed to what a mental process can achieve, the result of which retained internal to a human mind. The claim in terms of acts of “identifying” (relationships) and “generating” (composition recommendations) when construed in light of the claim language cannot be conducive to a particular inventive field in which it is necessarily tied to a particular machine to carry out explicit tangible product bearing an intended technical improvement. Thus, the “method” claim as a whole cannot be integrated into a Practical Application, as in contain an Abstract Idea type Judicial Exception.
Step II, prong B:
Under this prong, elements considered significant and deemed other than any well-known routine, activity are herein evaluated. The elements recited as “receiving” (instance of a component), “populating” (a solution with module support of the instance), “command line interface tool”, do not teach how (or under which implementation constraints) the steps of “identifying” or “generating” are rendered; nor do they dictate a concrete, integral use of machine/algorithm to carry out the “identifying”, “generating” step so to clearly integrate these steps into a practical application. For instance, the step of “receiving” (a component) amounts to a pre-activity step that does not substantiate to how the “identifying”, “generating” (a composition) would amount to much more than a Exception of a Abstract Idea genre; nor the step of “populating” amount to more than a pre-activity step to the mental process of “identifying”, “generating” as set forth in prong A. 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. That is, the receiving, populating steps can be part of 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.
In all, the “additional elements” under prong 2B when evaluated along with the Judicial Exception from step 2A are deemed not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception being raised.
Claim 1 and 16 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. Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are directed to an Abstract Idea type of Judicial Exception. These claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following Eligibility analysis
I) Step One:
Claim 1 recites a tool as machine type category of subject matter; and claim 16 recites a computer medium as a product category of subject matter.
II) Step Two, A
Claim 1 recites processors to perform “identify” (relationships), and “generate” (recommendations). The steps of identifying and generating (a recommendation) amounts to mere activities by which information is derived from information received, in that, absent further details, the “identifying” or “generating” step amount to mere activities that can be performed and achieved by a mental process; since none of the derivation from these mental activities is deemed susceptible for being integrated into a Practical application. Thus, as identified, the subject matter of claim 1 cannot be reasonably transformed/integrated into a practical application and is deemed an Abstract Idea type Judicial Exception; notably when the claim amounts to a process of receiving information from a computer interface, identifying some relationships observed therefrom and presenting the outcome from the identifying in some format, which falls under one generic “Mental Process” or subgrouping by the courts. See MPE 2106.04(a)(2), IIIC
Claim 16 (a product) recites the processors to perform steps of “identifying” and “generate” (composition) and absent further details and interpreted with the claim as a whole, amounts to a mere mental process of “identifying” relationships from presented information on a computer interface and generating a composition based on the “identifying”; simply because none of the derivation from these mental activities is deemed susceptible for being integrated into a Practical application. The subject matter surrounding this mental process is deemed an Abstract Idea type deficiency as this mental process can be realized without use of machine or algorithm
Step Two, B:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 (receiving and populating via a tool) are same as those identified in claim 11. As observed above in the analysis of claim 11, step 2B, the receiving and populating instances of these “additional elements” of claim 1, when evaluated along with the Judicial Exception from step 2A from above are deemed not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception being raised against this claim, since they are well-known routines or techniques by which a user can interact with presented data from a generic CPU interface. Similarly, use of a processor and interactive/command-line tool as interface means by which data is provided or viewed for observations and analytic to be performed constitute known techniques. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) – and cannot render the Judicial Exception of claim 1 to amount to much more than a mental process type statutory deficiency.
The additional elements recited in claim 16 are same as those identified in claim 11. As observed above in the analysis of claim 11, step 2B, the “additional elements” of claim 16, when evaluated (i.e. pre-activity of gathering information for a computer view) along with the mental process Judicial Exception from the step 2A (from above) are deemed not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception being raised against this claim.
Eligibility of dependent claims.
Claim 6 or claim 12 recites parsing a composition file and determining whether a component is logically linked to another component via some variable values; and this can be viewed as a process of identifying relationships as set forth in claim 1 or 11 as a way to use mental process to recognize inter-component linkage; hence claim 12 fails to integrate the mental process of claim 11 into a practical application.
Claim 7 or 13 recites action of “parse” definitions of a component or command, 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 when viewed as a mere post-activity step, fails to upconvert the “identifying” or “generating” step of claim 1 or 11 to make much more than a Judicial Exception.
Claim 2 or 17, recites composition files in terms of it being a resource, a provider, input/output variables or relationship type data. Description of a component fails to transform the “identifying” or “generating” step of the base claim into a Practical Application.
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”, “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 1-8, 10-14, 16-20 are rejected as infringing upon a Judicial Exception statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammond et al, CN 109564505, (translation) 03-25-2022, 32 pgs (herein Hammond).
As per claim l, Hammond discloses a command line interface tool for generating a solution comprising one or more components, the command line interface tool (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 (see 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) comprising the instance of the component (artificial intelligence network … abbreviation is “BRAIN” – pg. 13); and
generate solution composition recommendations (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 (define 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).
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 and from a user, 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; 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 claim 8)
As per claim 16, Hammond discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors for perfom1ing solution composition, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, from a user, an instance of a component (see Note0);
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; and
generate solution composition recommendations based on the identified inter-component relationships.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 1)
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 2, 6-7,12-13, 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 Nawab et al, USPubN: 2023/0334365 (herein Nawab), Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury) and Gursha et al, WO 2023200741, 4-10-2023, 64 pgs (herein Gursha)
As per claim 2, Hammond discloses command line interface tool of claim 1, wherein the component comprises 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, 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 stored or archived as 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 based on 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;
this file-based construct parsing assisting in establishing of logically related data/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 6, Hammond does not explicitly disclose command line interface tool of claim 2, wherein identifying the inter-component relationships further causes the one or more processors to:
parse the one or more solution composition files comprising metadata associated with the
component; and
determine, based on the parsing, whether a second component is logically related to the component,
the second component being logically related when the component and the second component have linked variable values.
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.
Thus, based on use of language integration query in which language concepts are interpreted as nodes (pg. 9) in association with processing a mental model in Hammond (pg. 8), 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 module 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 in light of metadata associated with a given component comprised therein;
determining, based on the parsing, whether a second component is logically related to the given component, in that the second component is being logically related when the given component and the second component have linked variable values – as set forth using markup format and tag referencing in Viondury; 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 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 - referred herein as (*)) -- that correspond to functionality of a component or node of an artificial intelligence model as in Hammond has been evidenced 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; as in Gursha with contents of a URL or server locator assisting in SW implementation in optimizing depth search/optimization engine; 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 12, Hammond discloses method of claim 11, wherein identifying the inter-component relationships comprises:
parsing, by the command line inte1face tool, one or more solution composition files comprising metadata associated with the component; and
determining, by the command line interface tool and based on the parsing, whether a second component is logically related to the component, the second component being 1ogically related when the component and the second component have linked variable values.
(Refer to rationale set forth with identifying the inter-component relationships set forth in the rationale of claim 2 or claim 6)
As per claim 13, Hammond discloses method of claim 11, further comprising parsing, by the command line interface tool, 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.
(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 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 1ogica11y 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 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 Nawab et al, USPubN: 2023/0334365 (herein Nawab), Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury) and Gursha et al, WO 2023200741, 4-10-2023, 64 pgs (herein Gursha), further in view of 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.
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 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 with the user command line
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 5 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 Nawab et al, USPubN: 2023/0334365 (herein Nawab), Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury) and Gursha et al, WO 2023200741, 4-10-2023, 64 pgs (herein Gursha), further in view of Gorrono et al, USPubN: 2023/0334395 (herein Gorrono)
As per claim 5, Hammond does not explicitly disclose command line interface tool of claim 2, wherein
defining the input variables and the output variables is based on metadata within the one or more solution composition files,
the metadata identifying values of the output variables of the component that are used as values of input variables of a second component.
Gorrono discloses a workflow with user-interactive objects (Fig. 10) associated with a development system or design where a designer represents output parameters of a first workflow step so that the value of such output elements specify value for an input into a second workflow step (para 0076) causing input parameters of the second workflow step to include values of the output parameters (para 0075) thus inserted by the designer on the GUI, each workflow step represented as a box on the designer GUI (para 0092), with display by the GUI responding to user actions from the Workflow Designer layer (Fig. 3) on which a UI generator acquires a workflow definition information or IDL provided in JSON format, according to which, each workflow step can be represented as API metadata (e.g. Swagger file) defining what are the necessary inputs and output parameters of the step, enabling the designer to generate ordering/sequencing of operations in that operations of the defined workflow would correspond to the metadata (para 0051) to yield a complete sequencing of operations and parameters values according to the IDL (interface definition information/language)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement manipulating of data for the mental model, specifying nodes type and mode of operations thereof using metadata (pg. 12) and learning of graph topology associated the architect module (pg. 15) in Hammond so that
defining the input variables and the output variables for the target model implementation at this acquisition and abstract learning phase is based on metadata within the one or more solution composition files – as per the IDF Json format in Gorrono;
where metadata associated with functions defined in this information definition file would enable a subsequent code configuration stage to identify values of the output variables from a given (first) component that are used as values for input variables into a second component, to achieve expectation of ordered sequence of input/output values dependency chaining directionally output from a first workflow element to input of a second workflow element as shown in Gorrono;
because
specification of metadata in pre-defining parametric type and signature composition of functions and method calls established from definition files as set forth above, would establish proper input and output variables, and calling types required for execution of an API or function to programmatically succeed, whereas
analysis of input/output data dependency in regard to expected values propagating from a first caller element to a second callee element as required or laid out from the metadata specification would ensure that code calling sequence for a model executing of connected nodes construed from a mental model as in Hammond would respect the ordering of I/O execution and transfer of values that correspond to sequential execution of model nodes that reflects application of API metadata prescribed by the interface definition information learned from the information acquisition and node manipulation stages prior to the code forming in Hammond neural network framework.
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 Nawab et al, USPubN: 2023/0334365 (herein Nawab), Vion-Dury et al, USPubN: 2010/0275117 (herein VionDury) and Gursha et al, WO 2023200741, 4-10-2023, 64 pgs (herein Gursha), further in view of 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 cause the one or more processors to: parse one or more solution composition files comprising metadata associated with the component;
identify a second component within the solution that is logically related to the component; and recommend that the component and the second component within the solution be connected.
As for (i),
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 remove a 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, and so, due to 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 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, 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.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 9)
As per claim 18, Hammond discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein
generating solution composition recommendations further causes the one or more processors to:
parse the one or more solution composition files comprising metadata associated with the
component;
identify a second component within the solution that is logically related to the component;
and recommend that the component and the second component within the solution be connected.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 10)
Conclusion
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Tuan A Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
January 22, 2026