DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-26 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-9,16,24-26 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Makhija et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0206762 A1; hereinafter referred to as Makhija), in view of Nikumb et al. (Pub. No. US 20210397418 A1; hereinafter referred to as Nikumb).
As per claim 1, Makhija discloses a data processing method for operating one or more application developed by codeless platform, the method comprising:
receiving one or more application data at a server (See p. [0007-0008] – data acquisition);
identifying by one or more identification bots, at least one relevant data from the received one or more application data wherein each of the one or more identification bot is embedded to at least one of the one or more application (See p. [0127] – bot identifying necessary data);
generating one or more scenarios by a bot coupled to an AI engine wherein at least one application module created or modified based on a codeless platform and the at least one relevant data provides a domain model structure of the at least one application module for generating the one or more scenarios (See abstract – codeless; and p. [0078, 0086, 0106, 0118]; and
analyzing the one or more scenario, one or more user data associated with the one or more scenario, at least one operational logic, and one or more operation execution conflict to generate for execution one or more operations associated with the one or more scenario (See p. [0007-0012]).
However, Makhija does not explicitly states - wherein at least one training relationship data model created from a classification code vector and a training data matrix using a machine learning engine (MLE) and the Al engine is configured to generate the at least one relevant data.
Nikumb discloses - wherein at least one training relationship data model created from a classification code vector and a training data matrix using a machine learning engine (MLE) and the Al engine is configured to generate the at least one relevant data (See p. [0027] – vector machine classifier (SVM) and AI to generate data).
Makhija and Nikumb are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Makhija’s codeless development of enterprise applications; and further combine it with Nikumb’s machine learning and SVM classifier for developing applications; thus, the combination allows the generation of platform specific layers for applications, while provisioning faster processing as the underlining architecture is appropriately defined to execute the operations through shortest paths and configurable components (See Makhija’s and Nikumb’s abstracts and backgrounds).
As per claim 2, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the one or more identification bots is configured to sense that at least one relevant data by an application data script (See Makhija’s p. [0119, 0127]).
As per claim 3, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the at least one relevant data is captured from one or more application data sources including chat messenger, email, discussion forum, and sub applications facilitating text message sharing (See Makhija’s p. [0078]).
As per claim 4, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 3 (See claim 3 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the domain model structure includes one or more application entities with their relationship to other entities represented by associations wherein one or more annotations connected to the domain model structure enables identification of means by which the domain model structure is to be operated (See Makhija’s p. [0010, 0106]).
As per claim 5, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 4 (See claim 4 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the domain model structure captures operational information and operational rules associated with the at least one application module and the one or more applications (See Makhija’s p. [0118]).
As per claim 6, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 5 (See claim 5 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the at least one application module is one or more supply chain operation applications including purchase order, invoice, sourcing, warehouse management, and inventory management (See Makhija’s abstract – SCM).
As per claim 7, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 6 (See claim 6 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the one or more application data includes data from an enterprise application including functions of procurement management, supply chain management, sourcing, inventory management, warehouse management, invoice management, PO, Demand planning, Supply planning, Forecasting, Project Management, Vendor performance management, Risk Assessment management (See Makhija’s p. [0092]).
As per claim 8, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 7 (See claim 7 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the at least one relevant data is identified based on at least one relationship of the at least one relevant data with one or more historical data element stored in a historical data elements database wherein the at least one relationship is identified based on one or more data models associated with the historical data elements database (See Makhija’s p. [0078, 0138]).
As per claim 9, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the method of claim 8 (See claim 8 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein a data structure metadata including views, plugins binding, rule engine data structure and BPMN data structure associated with the one or more applications are obtained from the domain model structure (See Makhija’s p. [0074, 0106], and Figs. 1-5E).
Claim 16 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a system, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
As per claim 24, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the system of claim 16 (See claim 16 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the domain model structure describes domain types for the enterprise application with associated constraints enabling reuse of common data types as the domain model structure enforces standardization across the one or more applications in relation to schema, nomenclature and validations across the applications (See Makhija’s p. [0009-0010).
Claim 25 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a product, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
As per claim 26, Makhija and Nikumb disclose the non-transitory computer program product of claim 25 (See claim 25 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the method is performed in a cloud or cloud-based computing environment (See Makhija’s p. [0049-0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 10-15, 17-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitations as specified by the claims.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. In these arguments applicant relies on the amended claims and not the original ones. See above rejections under 35 USC § 103 for response to arguments.
9. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP§ 706.07(a). 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 FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trujillo can be reached on 571-272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 04/06/2026.
Prosecution Insights