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 .
This action is responsive to the application filed April 01, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presenting for examination
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: components 316 and 340 of Fig. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 2, recites to include the following limitation “distributed DevOps” in the claim. As acronym is likely to change its meaning over time, thus, it (DevOps) needs to be spelled out once in the claim.
Line 7, recites to include the following limitation “an API interface” in the claim. As acronym is likely to change its meaning over time, thus, it (API) needs to be spelled out once in the claim. Further, delete “,” after “engine” and insert --,-- after “interface”.
Line 12, “the received data” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Line 19, recites to include the following limitation “using the orchestration rule engine to pulls” appears to have grammatically issue and should be changed to, for example -- using the orchestration rule engine to pull[[s]] – instead.
Lines 23-24, recites to include the following limitation “to the request for test data” should be changed to, for example -- to the test data request– instead.
Claim 11:
Line 2, recites to include the following limitation “distributed DevOps” in the claim. As acronym is likely to change its meaning over time, thus, it (DevOps) needs to be spelled out once in the claim.
Line 3, recites to include the following limitation “generative artificial intelligence (AI) configured to” should be changed to, for example -- generative artificial intelligence (AI) engine configured to– instead.
Line 7, recites to include the following limitation “an API interface” in the claim. As acronym is likely to change its meaning over time, thus, it (API) needs to be spelled out once in the claim. Further, insert --,-- before “from” and “information”, respectively.
Line 8, after “request;”, insert --and--.
Lines 12-13, “the arrange relationships” and “the received data” lack proper antecedent basis.
Lines 14-15, recites to include the following limitation “the generative artificial intelligence (AI)” should be changed to, for example – the generative AI engine – instead.
Line 19, after “sytem;”, insert --and--.
Line23, recites to include the following limitation “the dynamic smart contract builder is configured to;” should be changed to, for example -- the dynamic smart contract builder is configured to[[;]]: – instead.
Line 25, after “blockchain nodes;”, insert --and--.
Lines 26-27, recites to include the following limitation “to the request for test data” should be changed to, for example -- to the test data request – instead.
Line 28, recites to include the following limitation “an application programming interface (API) for receiving one or more responses” should be changed to, for example
– The API interface for receiving the one or more responses – instead.
Line 31, recites to include the following limitation “the API” should be changed to, for example – the API interface – instead.
Claim 16:
Line 1, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the event based generative AI engine” should be changed to, for example – wherein the generative AI engine – instead.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are also objected to for being depended upon the objection of base claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “generative artificial intelligence (AI) engine configured to… receive”, “an orchestration rule engine configured to receive… perform…and validate”, “a rule mapping engine for pulling”, “dynamic smart contract builder ...”, and “the automated test device for receiving” in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not disclose equivalent structures for the terms interpreted under 112(f) above. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The specification does not disclose equivalent structures for the terms interpreted under 112(f) above. Thus, claims are vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection (s), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts of record or made of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose and/or suggest, and/or motivation to combine, “receiving, at the event based generative AI engine, from an API interface information for responding to the test data request; receiving, at the event based generative AI engine, a plurality of requirement-based knowledge graphs, said plurality of requirement-based knowledge graphs that organize data from multiple user requests and capture information about existing data from previously processed information to arrange relationships between the received data; transferring correct shared knowledge information from the event based generative AI engine to an orchestration rule engine; using the orchestration rule engine to perform a threshold check, said threshold check that ensures that an updated set of rules meets a plurality of pre-set thresholds; using the orchestration rule engine to validate the test data, said validation that validates a type of the test data; using the orchestration rule engine to pulls a plurality of rules from a rule mapper for use in engaging a dynamic smart contract builder; using the dynamic smart contract builder to create a smart contract for transmitting the test data request to nodes selected from a distributed blockchain of blockchain nodes and for receiving from the selected nodes one or more responses to the request for test data; and forwarding said one or more responses to the API interface for transmission to an automated test device” as limitations recited in as such manners as in independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Skarphedinsson et al. (US-12126643-B1) disclose leveraging generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) for securing a monitored deployment.
Maghnani et al. (US-20250284619-A1) disclose dynamically validating application programming interfaces (APIs) using dynamic data and rules generation through federated byzantine agreement (FBA) analysis and generative artificial intelligence (AI) generated test cases.
Singh et al. (US-20250259178-A1) disclose using generative artificial intelligence to secure transaction.
ABDELRAHMAN et al. (US-20240394705-A1) discloses smart contract creation,
validation, and monitoring using generative artificial intelligence models.
Hearty et al. (US-20240330655-A1) disclose evaluating the outputs of various artificial intelligence models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm ET).
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192