DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 12 December 2025. Cancellation of claims 6 and 17 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 19 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 19 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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 19 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.
Independent claim 1, representative of claims 12, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites invention directed to generating a process-model based on a metamodel (Primitive) and a relation model (Relation) which are pre-stored; perform validation of the generated process-model and distribute the validated process-model.
Independent claim 1, representative of claims 11 and 12, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites invention directed to providing an edit environment in which a metamodel (Primitive) is edited, providing a second edit environment for indicating a connection state between respective metamodels (Primitive), and a third edit environment to receive an input from a user is edited; transforming, by a work model driving code generation module of the one or more processors, the generated process model is transformed into an executable code that can be driven in a real business environment; and distributed based on a result of the validating.
These limitations describe activities performed by a support department or a human. A support depart personnel generating a process-model using a using stored metamodel (e.g. an abstraction describing properties) and relationships which are used as basis with generative AI to generate a process-model, validating the output received, and if it meets the criteria, compile the process-model and deploy the compiled process-model as claimed would be part of marketing research. Using a generative AI to generate a process-model for deployment would be the support personnel of an entity or a human generating and updating process-model, verifying that the generated model meet the criteria before, transforming the model in to an executable code and deploying the executable code to update their online environment used by their users and customers.
Represented claim 12, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and modules.
The processor and modules are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor and modules amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 5, 7, 9 and 13 – 16 and 18 – 19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea with details regarding descriptions of various data that will be used to generate process model, who will be providing the various data, what specific commercially available technology may utilized to define the model, what capabilities will provided to the user on their User-Interface, defining that the generated model will be tested before it will be deployed, and how the designed model will be presented to the user on their user-interface. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 19 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1 – 7, 9 and 11 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US Publication 2021/0089281 in view of Poon et al. US Publication 2015/0220325 and Ivanov et al. US Publication 2016/0004516.
Regarding claim 1, 11 and representative claim 12, Smith teaches a processor implemented framework providing system and method (Smith teaches system and method for source code generation). Smith teaches systems and methods for generating computer source code from a model such that the resulting source code can be generated in a desired programming language, and the model and generated code form a correspondence to the intended conceptual design [Smith, 0024].
Smith does not explicitly teach domain-specific framework. However, Poon teaches system and method that allows multiple teams to develop domain-specific data model in parallel [Poon, 0105].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith by adopting teachings of Poon to enable a to develop their new applications by reusing their existing software architecture.
Smith in view of Poon teaches a processor implemented domain-specific process framework providing system and method comprising:
one or more processors [Poon, 0017];
providing, by a process development environment providing module of one or more processors, at least one edit environment among a first edit environment in which a metamodel (Primitive) is edited based on a process modeling language (Process DSL) (Smith, The method of the present invention can be accomplished by allowing an engineer or modeler to select from a catalog of abstractions or design patterns when creating or editing their model for the desired system) [Smith, 0061], a second edit environment in which a relation model (Relation) indicating a connection state between respective metamodels (Primitive) is edited (Smith, an engineer or other user of a modeling tool may select design patterns suitable for their problem space, and add, impose, or imbue an instance of them into the model or system description they are editing. Design patterns may form the framework of a new implementation, or they can be used to soundly and formally describe relationships within an existing implementation.) [Smith, 0073], and a third edit environment in which a form to receive an input from a user is edited (Smith, systems and methods for generating computer source code from a model such that the resulting source code can be generated in a desired programming language, and the model and generated code form a correspondence to the intended conceptual design. The systems and methods include a step of selecting design patterns according to original design decisions to provide an abstract form model representing an abstracted view of a computer program.) [Smith, 0024, also see 0073];
generating, by the one or more processors of a process framework providing system, a process model based on a metamodel (Primitive) and a relation model (Relation) which are pre-stored (Smith, A code generating framework generates code for a model Application Program Interface (API). The framework comprises three components: an API code generator, a serialization code generator, and a deserialization code generator.) [Smith, 0012];
Smith in view of Poon does not explicitly teach validation of generated process model. However, Smith teaches their abstraction model is also suitable as input for an automated inference engine for validation or verification purposes prior to, or after, the generation of the computer source code. however, Ivanov teaches code generation framework for application comprising three components: an API code generator, a serialization code generator, and a deserialization code generator.
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith in view of Poon by adopting teachings of Ivanov to validate that the model instance adheres the model specification defined within the metamodel [Ivanov, 0082].
Smith in view of Poon and Ivanov teaches system and method further comprising:
validating, using a validation model by the one or more processors, a process of the generated process model before the generated process model is distributed (Ivanov, Validation functionality was also included within the generated APL Setter functions check the given data or respectively reference types. Additionally, a validation method is provided that checks that a model instance adheres the model specifications ( e.g., cross-references, cardinalities, pattern) defined within the metamodel.) [Ivanov, 0082];
Smith in view of Poon and Ivanov does not explicitly recite transforming of generated process model into an executable code. however, Ivanov teaches The code generator 102 comprises three components: an API code generator 106, a serializer code generator 108, and a deserializer code generator 110. Each of these three components is configured to generate executable code in response to the model.) [Ivanov, 0039]. Huang teaches system and method for analyzing storage structure of graphical program, generating and executable file of the graphical program, and transmitting the executable file to a controller through a data exchange for running [Huang, Fig. 1 and associated disclosure];
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith in view of Poon and Ivanov by adopting teachings of Huang to provide an efficient and simple compiling method, through which an executable file of a program in a controller is automatically generated, so as to achieve an operation effect of the program, and the specific technical solutions.
Smith in view of Poon, Ivanov and Huang teaches system and method further comprising:
transforming, by a work model driving code generation module of the one or more processors, the generated process model into a code that is executable in a framework driving engine configured to support the generated process model to be driven in a real business environment (Huang, analyzing storage structure of graphical program, generating and executable file of the graphical program, and transmitting the executable file to a controller through a data exchange for running) [Huang, Fig. 1 and associated disclosure];; and
distributing, by the one or more processors, the generated process model, based on a result of the validating (Poon, framework allows software application developers to deliver software applications by providing 1) a vertical stack of back end business logic, 2) a domain model and 3) a front end presentation, each of which can be deployed as modular units. The framework of the present disclosure also facilitates dependence management and dynamic deployment, and defines how application components in different layers of the stack should work with each other. These modules can be deployed into the application at run time, to add features, for upgrades, to fix problems or for other suitable purposes) [Poon, 0064];
Regarding claim 2 and representative claim 13, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Smith in view of Poon, Ivanov and Huang teaches system and method, wherein the process framework providing system comprises the one or more processors comprising:
a framework driving engine (runtime engine) configured to support the generated process model to be driven in a real business environment (Poon, A software development platform is provided that includes one or more user-selectable modular units containing a vertical stack of back-end business logic, one or more user-selectable modular units containing domain model components, and one or more user-selectable modular units containing front end presentation components. A virtual appliance includes application-specific logic that utilizes one or more of the modular units containing the vertical stack of back-end business logic) [Poon, 0003].
Regarding claim 3 and representative claim 14, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Smith in view of Poon, Ivanov and Huang teaches system and method, wherein the generating the process model comprises:
generating the process model based on domain knowledge which is provided from a specific company which intends to drive a process model (Poon, A software development platform is provided that includes one or more user-selectable modular units containing a vertical stack of back-end business logic, one or more user-selectable modular units containing domain model components, and one or more user-selectable modular units containing front end presentation components. A virtual appliance includes application-specific logic that utilizes one or more of the modular units containing the vertical stack of back-end business logic) [Poon, 0003].
Regarding claim 4 and representative claim 15, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Smith in view of Poon, Ivanov and Huang teaches system and method, wherein the metamodel is created in a process modeling language of any one of a domain- specific language (DSL), a business process model and notation (BPMN), and a UML activity diagram (Smith, Working in the conceptual solution space is often assisted in software development by "models," which are represented in a "modeling language." The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is an example which offers a precise formulation of programming features, and offers a graphical representation that makes working with the models easier. In this manner, programmers can communicate the conceptual designs for the solutions they have in mind in a common language and understanding.) [Smith, 0022].
Regarding claim 5 and representative claim 16, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Smith in view of Poon, Ivanov and Huang teaches system and method, wherein the process framework providing system further comprises the one or more processors comprising the process development environment providing module configured to provide an edit environment for generating the process model (Smith, The method of the present invention can be accomplished by allowing an engineer or modeler to select from a catalog of abstractions or design patterns when creating or editing their model for the desired system) [Smith, 0061].
Regarding claim 7 and representative claim 18, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Smith in view of Poon, Ivanov and Huang teaches system and method, wherein the process framework providing system further comprises:
a metamodel repository configured to store the metamodel (Ivanov, framework and the model deployed (stored) in a database) [Ivanov, 0220]; and
a relation model repository configured to store the relation model (Ivanov, framework and the model deployed (stored) in a database) [Ivanov, 0220].
Regarding claim 9 and representative claim 19, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Smith in view of Poon, Ivanov and Huang teaches system and method, wherein the process framework providing system further comprises a business process visualization engine configured to visualize the generated process model, wherein the business process visualization engine is configured to visualize components constituting the process model with a line, a graph, or a 3D shape (Smith, see at least Fig. 5, 9 and associated disclosure].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a specialized software development tool that divides the modeling environment into three distinct, highly specific technical interfaces and physically transforms this constructed model into executable code tailored for a specific "framework driving engine." , and the claimed invention is a technological solution to a technological problem-improving how domain-specific process models are technically generated, verified, and compiled into runtime-executable code, is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further review, it is deemed that the claimed invention in not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101, and have been responded to in update Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because combination of cited prior art does not teach the amended claimed invention, is acknowledged and considered.
However, while performing a search for prior art, a new prior art “Huang et al.” was found which teach the added limitations to the amended claim, and has been cited in this office action. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights