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 July 24, 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, wherein the verifying comprises: obtaining a function category of the logical node and data types of sub-nodes of the logical node; obtaining a correspondence rule of the function category; and determining whether the data types of the sub-nodes meet the rule; 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, obtaining, determining, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, because they recite a computer-implemented type-checking mechanism for verifying logical nodes. However, other than the claims reciting in the preamble that the method occurs on an electronic device, nothing in the claim specifically requires that the method be computer-implemented. There are no technical components or steps discussed in the body of the claim that would limit the method to only being carried out by a computer. While the specification lays out a path for such a method to be executed using computer code, applicant has not made clear why a human could not practically perform the steps of obtaining information and making determinations based on that information. Further, because the primary abstract idea identified is Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, the fact that a computer carries out the steps of data analysis does not preclude the claims from being directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because it claims technical steps that improve the functioning of a data processing system and provide a concrete technical improvement. However, applicant has not demonstrated anything technical about the process being carried out, nor has a technical improvement been identified. The act of analyzing data is not in and of itself technical, and improving reliability and efficiency of verification is further not a technical improvement, as verification is an abstract idea. Improvement within the abstract idea is still abstract, and does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Improving software to better perform calculations is not a technical solution to a technical problem, as it does not involve the functioning of the computer at all, and only improves the calculating, which again is part of the abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the rule-based type-checking mechanism is not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. However, because this element was not identified as an additional element at step 2A prong II, the examiner is not required to demonstrate that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, the fact that an abstract idea is not demonstrated in the prior art is not sufficient to show that the claim as a whole is significantly more than the abstract idea. While the prior art fails to teach only verifying function-type nodes and not verifying other nodes, nothing about that feature, either independently or in combination, makes the claims significantly more than the abstract idea, as it is merely an abstract process of determining to verify some data and skip verification of others, which does not constitute a clear technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant further points to paragraphs 49-50 as demonstrating a technical solution to a technical problem. However, the fact that a programming language is used to parse logic into a syntax tree does not show a technical solution to a technical problem. Rather, it shows that an off-the-shelf computer tool (Antlr) can be used to analyze data much in the way that a human could analyze data. Nothing about the use of this tool suggests an improvement to the functioning of the computer. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Overall, the arguments are not persuasive and the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 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