DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 2/17/26.
101 rejection is revised and maintained. See details below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1] applicant argues (summary Remarks 2/17/26, pg 8-9)(emphasis added)
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Without conceding that there is any merit to the rejections, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite:
generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of rules for the cloud service using a generative model based on the data associated with the one or more architectural objectives;
determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the plurality of rules generated by the generative model meets a quality threshold indicating the rule is binary;
validating, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that meet the quality threshold;
correcting, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that do not meet the quality threshold;
storing, by the one or more processors, the validated and corrected rules as structured data.
At least these features indicate claim 1 is not a mental process and/or method of organizing human activity because these limitations cannot practically be performed by a human. As discussed in Applicant's specification, most "existing solutions relate to configuration frameworks rather than architecture frameworks. Configuration frameworks can check for a specific setting and can report if that setting is true or false. By contrast, architecture frameworks require an understanding of objectives, which can include elements such as conditions, dependencies, and/or relevant standards ..
. . Architecture frameworks can further be dynamic to represent dynamic objectives, where goals for the framework can change over time." Specification, [0022]. Designing architecture frameworks
manually ultimately becomes untenable, due to accounting for these dynamically changing
conditions, dependencies, and/or relevant standards. Therefore, "rather than including a manual,
binary assessment, e.g., either a user workload comports or does not comport, the framework includes
an automated, principle-based assessment, where a user workload can be programmatically assessed
to be consistent with certain principles associated with a given tier of the architecture. The framework
can include one or more machine learning models, such as large generative models, to generate rules
for the architecture and process the generated rules to ensure the rules are aligned with the objectives
of the architecture." Specification, [0020].
"Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitation(s) that can
practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to
perform the claim limitations." M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2) Ill.A., 2100-38. "Claim limitations that
encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this
grouping." USPTO Memo Re: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35
U.S.C. 101, page 2. Accordingly, since the features cited above cannot practically be performed by a
human, claim 1 is not a mental process and/or method of organizing human activity.
...
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Current 2/17/26 amendments to claims (mark-up included below) recite:
1. (currently amended) A method for continuous architecture as a service comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, data associated with one or more architectural objectives
for a cloud service;
generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of rules for the cloud service using a generative model based on the data associated with the one or more architectural objectives;
determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the plurality of rules generated by the generative model meets a quality threshold indicating the rule is binary;
validating, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that meet the quality threshold;
correcting, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that do not meet the quality threshold;
storing, by the one or more processors, the validated and corrected rules as structured data,
based on the structured data, grouping, by the one or more processors, the plurality of rules to form one or more modules for the cloud service based on one or more conditions of the architectural objectives;
...
Specifically, amended claims does not improve computer technology, instead, as disclosed in the IFW specification, claim 1 remains a framework, that, rather than including a manual, binary assessment, e.g., either a user workload comports or does not comport, the framework includes an automated, principle-based assessment, where a user workload can be programmatically assessed to be consistent with certain principles associated with a given tier of the architecture and the framework can include one or more machine learning models, such as large generative models, to generate rules for the architecture and process the generated rules to ensure the rules are aligned with the objectives of the architecture (see IFW [0020]) and the framework for the architecture as a service system 100 can further include a user interface for a user to interface with rules sets to enable/disable rules 104, initiate and review resultant templates from architectural objectives, and/or review available rules 104 and templates 108 and the user interface can allow a user to review templates 108 and associated tags 114 to apply to cloud services and the user interface can also allow a user to enable/disable modules 112 and for a template 108 that depends on a module 112, the user interface can warn the user that template finding can be incomplete due to the disabled module 112 and the user interface can further include a module review, which allows a user to walk through the set of rules 104 that define preferences and document deviations as reasons for turning off any rules 104 (see IFW [0059]).
Furthermore, most recently cited support (Remarks 2/17/26: IFW [0072-74]) and previously cited support (Remarks 10/21/25: IFW [0044-45; 54; 72]; Remarks 8/25/25: IFW [0062;72]) with respect to current amendments including validating rules and correcting rules is further disclosed as a current state can correspond to
detection of alignment with a rule 104 and a deviation can correspond to a user supplied reason for ignoring a rule 104 (IFW [0044]) and a specific rule 104 defined on a module 112 can represent a recommendation for a scenario from the operator of the cloud-based platform (IFW [0045]).
In other words, the framework, rather than a manual process, automates users to participate in all amended claimed activities as desired and/or approve/ disapprove/ revise automated output as desired. Therefore, amended claims are not a practical application that is a technological improvement.
2] applicant argues (summary Remarks 2/17/26, pg 9-10)(emphasis added)
Further, at least these features provide for a practical application of preventing faulty rules, e.g., hallucinated or otherwise out of place rules, from being grouped and/or configured as well as template architectures from being deployed with these faulty rules, thus avoiding wasting computing resources and compromising architecture stability that could result from deploying the faulty template architectures. See Specification, [0072]-[0074]. Specifically, given that a generative model is used to generate rules, since generating rules as claimed would be untenable for a human to accomplish on their own, generated faulty rules, e.g., rules that do not meet the quality threshold, are corrected prior to being grouped into modules or templates, computing resources are thus saved in deploying template architectures. See Specification, [0072]. Further, storing the validating and corrected rules as structured data allows for a more streamlined approach for grouping the rules into the module or templates, with less risk of hallucinations. See Specification, [0074]. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has "credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements". USPTO Memo Re: Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, page 2 (indicating additional paragraph to be
added to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III). Thus, independent claim 1 improves computer technology.
...
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, see response to argument 1] above.
In other words, as disclosed in applicant’s own IFW specification, the framework, rather than a manual process, automates users participating in all amended claimed activities as desired and/or approve/ disapprove/ revise automated output as desired. Therefore, amended claims are not a practical application that is a technological improvement.
3] applicant argues (summary Remarks 2/17/26, pg 10)(emphasis added)
Moreover, the Office Action recites the "judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of 'one or more processors', 'one or more modules', 'one or more storage devices', and 'non-transitory computer readable medium' amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component claimed at a high-level of abstraction." However, the "analysis in Step 2A Prong Two considers the claim as a whole", not just what the Office Action considers as the additional elements. USPTO Memo Re: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, page 3. When considered as a whole, particularly "generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of rules for the cloud service using a generative model based on the data associated with the one or more architectural objectives" and "determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the plurality of rules generated by the generative model meets a quality threshold indicating the rule is binary", the claims provide for a particular solution to a problem, specifically how to generate computing architectures that align with architectural objectives while avoiding faulty rule generation that could ultimately cause faulty architectures.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 recites patentable subject matter. Further, since the dependent claims incorporate all the features of their respective base claims, Applicant respectfully submits that pending claims 2-11 recite patentable subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above, as well as on their own merits.
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 12 and 20 (and pending claims 13-19 by their dependency to claim 12) recite patentable subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above, as well as on their own merits.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the§ 101 rejections.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, see response to argument 1] and 2] above.
In other words, as disclosed in applicant’s own IFW specification, the claimed framework’s processors, modules and storage devices, along with amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component claimed at a high-level of abstraction, rather than a manual process, automates users participating in all amended claimed activities as desired and/or approve/ disapprove/ revise automated output as desired. Therefore, amended claims are not a practical application that is a technological improvement.
That is, amended claim limitation(s), under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations automating human activity and/or performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic “computer hardware”, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes”. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
In summary, IFW specification claims 1, 12 and 20 IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;40; 47;59-60]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;41;48;60-61] recite the claimed continuous architecture as a service operations is not a technological improvement but, rather, “automates” otherwise manual human processes of a network administrator and/or user. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 recite(s) a method, system and medium (step 1) for a continuous architecture as a service, operations comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, data associated with one or more architectural objectives for a cloud service; generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of rules for the cloud service using a generative model based on the data associated with the one or more architectural objectives (see IFW abstract; [0002-4;20-21;59]; PGPub abstract; [0003-5;21-22;60] – defined by and for a user/operator and rather than including a manual, binary assessment, e.g., either a user workload comports or does not comport, the framework includes an automated, principle-based assessment, where a user workload can be programmatically assessed and the framework can include one or more machine learning models, such as large generative models, to generate rules for the architecture and process the generated rules to ensure the rules are aligned with the objectives of the architecture (see IFW [0020]); determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the plurality of rules generated by the generative model meets a quality threshold indicating the rule is binary (see IFW [0059] - user interface includes a module review which allows a user to walk through the set of rules that defines preferences and document deviations as reasons for turning off any rules), validating, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that meet the quality threshold (see IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;59]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;60] – set of rules allow user to define objectives ... rules associated via conditions, standards, tags correlate which rules considered collectively as a group ... any conditions and/or standards provided by user and rules dynamically and continually updated with latest guidance by users as well as operators); correcting, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that do not meet the quality threshold (the framework for the architecture as a service system 100 can further include a user interface for a user to interface with rules sets to enable/disable rules 104 (i.e. correcting), initiate and review resultant templates from architectural objectives, and/or review available rules 104 and templates 108 and the user interface can allow a user to review templates 108 and associated tags 114 to apply to cloud services and the user interface can also allow a user to enable/disable modules 112 and for a template 108 that depends on a module 112, the user interface can warn the user that template finding can be incomplete due to the disabled module 112 and the user interface can further include a module review, which allows a user to walk through the set of rules 104 that define preferences and document deviations as reasons for turning off any rules 104 (see IFW [0059]); storing, by the one or more processors, the validated and corrected rules as structured data (i.e. validated and corrected rules); (see IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;59]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;60] – set of rules allow user to define objectives ... rules associated via conditions, standards, tags correlate which rules considered collectively as a group ... any conditions and/or standards provided by user and rules dynamically and continually updated with latest guidance by users as well as operators); based on the structured data (i.e. validated and corrected rules), grouping the plurality of rules to form one or more modules for the cloud service (see IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;59]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;60] – set of rules allow user to define objectives ... rules associated via conditions, standards, tags correlate which rules considered collectively as a group ... any conditions and/or standards provided by user and rules dynamically and continually updated with latest guidance by users as well as operators); determining a relative weight for each of the plurality of rules based on the data associated with the one or more architectural objectives and how the plurality of rules are grouped into the one or more modules; configuring a state of each of the plurality of rules in the one or more modules based on the relative weights objectives (see IFW [0059] - user interface includes a module review which allows a user to walk through the set of rules that defines preferences and document deviations as reasons for turning off any rules; see IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;59]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;60] – set of rules allow user to define objectives ... rules associated via conditions, standards, tags correlate which rules considered collectively as a group ... any conditions and/or standards provided by user and rules dynamically and continually updated with latest guidance by users as well as operators); configuring the plurality of rules in the one or more modules based on the one or more conditions (see IFW [0002-5;20-21;59]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;29;60] – set of rules allow user to define objectives ... rules associated via conditions, standards, tags correlate which rules considered collectively as a group ... any conditions and/or standards provided by user and rules dynamically and continually updated with latest guidance by users as well as operators); grouping the one or more modules to form a template architecture for the cloud service based on the states of the plurality of rules in the one or more modules (see IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;47;59-60]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;48;60-61] – templates represent a desired configuration of a user as well as the point of view of the operator at a solution level ... set of rules allow user to define objectives ... rules associated via conditions, standards, tags correlate which rules considered collectively as a group ... any conditions and/or standards provided by user and rules dynamically and continually updated with latest guidance by users as well as operators ... user interface allows user to review templates and associated tags to apply ... allows user to walk through set of rules defining preferences and document deviations as reasons for turning off any rules); and outputting the template architecture for the cloud service (see IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;59-60]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;60-61] – set of rules allow user to define objectives ... rules associated via conditions, standards, tags correlate which rules considered collectively as a group ... any conditions and/or standards provided by user and rules dynamically and continually updated with latest guidance by users as well as operators ... user interface for user to interface with rules, initiate and review resultant template from architectural objectives and/or review available rules and templates ... allows user to review templates and associated tags to apply ... allows user to walk through set of rules defining preferences and document deviations as reasons for turning off any rules).
Furthermore, amendments to claims of “generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of rules for the cloud service using a generative model based on the data associated with the one or more architectural objectives; determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the plurality of rules generated by the generative model meets a quality threshold indicating the rule is binary; validating, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that meet the quality threshold; correcting, by the one or more processors, rules of the plurality of rules that do not meet the quality threshold; storing, by the one or more processors, the validated and corrected rules as structured data; based on the structured data, grouping, by the one or more processors, the plurality of rules to form one or more modules for the cloud service based on one or more conditions of the architectural objectives” are disclosed to support automating human activity and not a technological improvement.
Specifically, claim 1 does not improve computer technology. Instead, as disclosed in the specification, claim 1 remains a framework that includes an automated, principled-based assessment, where a user workload can be programmatically assessed to be consistent with certain principles associated with given tier(s) of architecture rather than a manual, binary assessment and this framework accommodates users of the cloud-based platform ... allows users to choose to align a particular solution or use case ... allows flexibility for the user to decline specific rules to support custom architecture requirements (such as validation) while continuing to receive later rule sets to maintain alignment with later framework recommendations (see IFW [0020-21]) and tags on templates can be how a deployed environment for a service measured against the architecture as a service framework and, as a result, tags can mark applications and solutions that the user has chosen to deploy (see IFW [0048]).
Furthermore, cited support of [0062;72] of amendments that use machine learning is further disclosed as receiving input from a user via a user interface and display output via user interface so that the user can interface with rule sets to enable/disable rules and user interface includes a module review which allows a user to walk through the set of rules that defines preferences and document deviations as reasons for turning off any rules and initiate and review resultant templates from architectural objectives, and/or review available rules and templates and allows user(s) to review templates and associated tags to apply to the cloud services (see IFW [0059] and [0060-61] and [0065-67]). In other words, the framework automates and flexibly allows users to participate in all claimed activities as desired and/or approve/ disapprove/ revise automated output as desired. Therefore, amended claims are not a practical application that is a technological improvement.
That is, amended claim limitation(s), under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations automating human activity and/or performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic “computer hardware”, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes”. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
If claim limitation(s), under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations automating human activity and/or performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic “computer hardware”, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes”. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “one or more processors” “one or more modules” “one or more storage devices” “non-transitory computer readable medium” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component claimed at a high-level of abstraction. That is, the additional elements are not an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology, they do not implement the judicial exception with a particular machine integral to the claim(s), and they do not use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim(s) as a whole, looking at the elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, IFW specification claims 1, 12 and 20 IFW [0002-5;20-21;26;40; 47;59-60]; PGPub [0003-5;21-22;27;41;48;60-61] recite the claimed continuous architecture as a service operations is not a technological improvement but, rather, “automates” otherwise manual human processes of a network administrator and/or user. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong Two, Step 2B). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JUNE SISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5693. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUNE SISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455