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 Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on January 16, 2026.
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, 2, 4-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the four statutory categories.
At step 2A prong I, claim 1 recites: obtaining a business object topology map and displaying the business object topology map; wherein the business object topology map comprises a plurality of business objects; establishing a logical relationship of at least one business object in the business object topology map using a logical function to obtain data processing logic of the at least one business object; parsing the data processing logic to obtain a logical topology map corresponding to the data processing logic; wherein the logical topology map comprises a plurality of logical nodes, and parsing the data processing logic to obtain target data processing logic, wherein performing the format transformation comprises transforming the data processing logic into data having a syntax corresponding to a programming language; obtaining instance data corresponding to the at least one business object; traversing the logical nodes in the logical topology map to obtain categories of the traversed logical nodes using Depth First Search traversing, wherein the categories comprise a function type, a variable type and a constant type; verifying a traversed logical node in accordance with a category of the logical node being the function type, and determining a data type of the traversed logical node without verification in accordance with the category of the logical node being the variable type or the constant type; and processing the instance data based on the logical topology map to obtain a processing result. These elements are directed to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, in that they define commercial or business activity, i.e. the management of business information. Further, the steps of obtaining, establishing, parsing, obtaining, traversing, verifying, and processing can also be considered a Mental Process, as a human being can process the data according to the steps listed either in the human mind or with pen and paper.
At step 2A prong II, the additional elements claimed are an electronic device, a current interface, obtaining instance data. The electronic device and current interface are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. Obtaining data is insignificant extra-solution activity defined in MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At step 2B, when considering the additional elements both individually and as a whole, the use of generic computing components and insignificant extra-solution data gathering does not result in the claim being significantly more than the abstract idea as discussed above. The MPEP further identifies obtaining data as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 10 and 19 are substantially the same as claim 1, though they contain the additional elements of: one or more processors, a storage apparatus for storing one or more programs, and a non- transitory storage medium, which all constitute generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considering the additional elements as a whole, the use of generic computing components does not result in the claim as a whole being significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 10 and 19 are also ineligible.
The dependent claims only further limit the abstract idea, and do not add additional elements to the claims. Therefore, claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20-22 are further deemed ineligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The claims would be allowable over the prior art, if the 101 rejection were able to be overcome. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach the limitation “verifying a traversed logical node in accordance with a category of the logical node being the function type, and determining a data type of the traversed logical node without verification in accordance with the category of the logical node being the variable type or the constant type” in combination with all of the other claim limitations.
Yao (WO 2017/000877A1) teaches displaying and modifying a business topology map.
Kulkarni et al. (US 12131233) teaches performing format transformation on processing logic into a programming language syntax (see column 43).
Bourzikas (US 2024/0314158) teaches using Depth First Search in a topology map (see paragraph 65).
Yang (CN 115237389A) teaches verification of nodes in a topology map, but not at the level described in the claims.
Therefore, while much of the claim is taught by the prior art, the limitation cited cannot be found in the prior art and combined with the other references, such that the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues that at step 2A prong I, the claims involve specific technical operations rather than an abstract idea. However, the argued limitation of “performing format transformation…” is understood to mean that the syntax (wording/language) of a logical function (mathematical relationship) is changed from one language (original language) to another programming language (i.e. the language the computer can accept). This limitation involves text editing, which is an abstract concept as it is something that can be done in the human mind or with pen and paper, as well as being part of a larger method of organizing human activity, such as the management of business information. While it is text on a computer, there is not a format change occurring that cannot be carried out by a computer, as one who knows computing languages can look at a logical function and then rewrite it according to that computing language without requiring any technological involvement. The Applicant’s further argument that Depth First Search traversing is a specific technical implementation is also not persuasive. While Depth First Search can be done using computers, it was originally formulated prior to the existence and use of computers and can therefore be done by the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-first_search). Applicant’s specification further only sets forth the concept of Depth First Search as being done according to the existing process (see paragraph 65) and is not limited to any specific computing embodiment. Therefore, these arguments and claim amendments do not demonstrate that the claims are not directed to abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues that at step 2A prong II, the claims recite specific steps and technical implementations, which improve the efficiency and reliability of the verification process. However, using the language of a computer to give instructions to a computer, and searching in a particular manner, while they may improve the process, are still part of the abstract idea and therefore are not analyzed as additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the MPEP does give examples of data being reformatted or converted that are additional elements and do integrate into a practical application, the translation of one language into another is not considered the same type of data reformatting as discussed in those examples. If the Applicant believes differently, showing support in the specification for the technical nature of the reformatting would be beneficial.
Applicant finally argues that at step 2B, these same limitations provide significantly more content through specific steps and technical implementations. However, because, as discussed above, these limitations are not technical implementations, these arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections are moot in view of the claim amendments and discussion above regarding potentially allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights