DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 3 September 2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because “the receiving config information includes… extracts” should be amended to “the receiving config information includes… extracting”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 13 and 20, the generating, executing, comparing, determining cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving, providing, output, acquiring limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 the queries, extract, executes, update, monitored, select, condition satisfied, reflect value cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The include, provide, receive, output, acquire are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 10, 11, 12, the reset, determined, reflect value cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 14 includes, provides are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt et al., Pub. No.: US 20210255842 A1, hereinafter Levitt in view of Rao et al., Pub. No.: US 20170168854 A1, hereinafter Rao.
As per claim 1, Levitt discloses A software development system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed (fig. 8), cause the processor to execute steps of: providing a graphical user interface (GUI)-based config interface; receiving config information of target software through the config interface, the config information including config information on a plurality of items, at least some of which are for configuring a common component (pars. 23-26, 76-77, 85, 105, 117, fig.’s 3A-B, 7A-C disclose GUI 102 that has a config interface for users to configure step macros by entering user configurable data points into fields rendered by step config requirements component 206; the step config requirements component has fields for configuration items including I/O characteristics, branching logic, settings, routing params, etc., at least some of which configure the shared library 108, being a shared function library accessible across all step macros (i.e. common component); see pars. 23-24, 91-106 wherein step configuration generator 202 (i.e. config manager) in connection with the UI component);
generating a code of the target software based on the config information (see rejection above and note that execution code generator 202 (i.e. code generator) receives the step config file produced from the user configurable data points and inputs it into a metaprogramming component 224 to generate and output a compiled step file (executable code for the target software based on the config information), see abstract, pars. 29-31, fig.’s 3B, 4); and
executing the generated code by using the common component in which the config information of the at least some of the items is reflected (see rejection above including at least pars. 90, 103-114, 117, 118, 143 fig. 4, items 406, 410 and note that the compiled step file is executed (i.e. execution engine executing), the compiled step file was generated based on the step configuration file and shared functions from the shared library 108. The shared library functions (i.e. common component) are incorporated into the compiled step file with the configuration information “reflected” therein)
Leavitt does not disclose however Rao discloses:
wherein the config information includes a data field list including data fields set to be output to a screen through a UI component at the time of execution of the target software (Rao, pars. 16-18, 24-26 disclose GUI config manager 206D configures data fields, and field metadata manager 206B determines fields mapped onto the GUI based on application config info), and
the executing the generated code includes:
acquiring a field structure transferred to the UI component during execution of the target software (Rao, pars. 27-28, 35 disclose field metadata manager 206B reads and extracts field metadata, including field names, domains, data types, from application data structures, and UI runtime manager 206C retrieves runtime data fields),
comparing the data field list set in the config information and the acquired field structure (Rao, pars. 30-32 disclose UI metadata manager 206A maintains configured field mappings, and read FM metadata component 206A3 validates consistency between design time and runtime metadata), and
determining at least one data field output to the screen through the UI component based on the compared results (Rao, pars. 16-18, 26, 35 disclose field metadata manager 206B determines data fields mapped to the GUI based on application config and field metadata, and UI runtime manager 206C renders the corresponding fields).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Rao’s configuration based field metadata validation and runtime field rendering technique would have allowed Leavitt’s software development platform to ensure that data fields displayed by generated software are consistent with the configured fields and available runtime field metadata, which would improve GUI consistency and reduce display errors.
As per claim 2, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 1, wherein the config interface includes a wizard-based first config interface that provides a setting function for a predefined basic item among the plurality of items (pars. 33, 62-64, 83, 159, fig. 6C).
As per claim 3, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 2, wherein the config interface further includes a second config interface that is not based on wizard, and the second config interface also provides the setting function for the basic item (fig. 7C, details tab 312 is separate from the wizard component that provides field level configuration of the same items configurable by the wizard).
As per claim 6, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 1, wherein the generating a code includes providing the generated code through a code interface, and the executing the generated code includes receiving a user-defined code for the target software through the code interface, and executes the user-defined code and the generated code together (see pars. 29-31, 46-50, fig. 4, step 411 the execution code generator 220 has access to step specific functions added by the step author (i.e. user defined code) and inputs them to the metaprogramming component 224 with the step config file and shared functions to generate the compiled step file).
As per claims 13, 14, 16 and 20, they are analogous to claims above and thus likewise rejected.
Claims 4, 5, 7-12, 15, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt as modified and further in view of Wilson et al., Pub. No.: US 20230146421 A1, hereinafter Wilson.
As per claim 4, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 1, wherein the plurality of items include items for setting a data field to be output onto a screen through a UI component at the time of execution of the target software (see rejection of claim 1 above). Levitt as modified does not expressly disclose, however Wilson discloses the receiving config information includes querying a table associated with the target software in a linked database, and provides a column of the queried table as a candidate for the data field through the config interface (Wilson, par. 119, 125-126, 166 disclose database table as data source, that (component config) “section 1004 contains a dropdown menu labeled “Table” from which a database table to populate the list shown in section 1002 can be selected” which means the platform queries available tables associated with the target software and presents them as candidates for data field configuration).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Wilson would have allowed Levitt as modified to incorporate a DB table querying mechanism in order to allow for the selection of data fields from backed DB tables during configuration and note that both references are directed to low or no code platforms that bind data sources to UI components.
As per claim 5, Levitt as modified discloses the software development platform of claim 1, wherein the plurality of items include an item for setting a data field to be output onto a screen through a UI component at the time of execution of the target software (see rejection of claim 1 above). Levitt as modified does not expressly disclose, however Wilson discloses and the receiving config information includes, when there is a code associated with the target software, extracts a variable defined in the associated code and provides the extracted variable as a candidate of the data field (Wilson, pars. 3, 125, 137-149, 156-158 disclose variables such as myName and isLoggedIn which are presented to the user as selectable application state variables via a dropdown menu).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Wilson would have allowed Levitt as modified to incorporate a variable extraction mechanism to present already declared variables from associated code as configuration candidates in order to ensure consistent usage of previously declared variables, and note that both references are directed to low or no code platforms that bind data sources to UI components.
As per claim 7, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 1. Levitt as modified does not expressly disclose, however Wilson discloses wherein the executing the generated code includes: outputting a first data field commonly existing in the field structure and the data field list to the screen through the UI component, and outputting a second data field, which exists in the field structure but does not exist in the data field list, to the screen through the UI component (Wilson, pars. 129, 134-137, 156-166, 175 disclose accessing data source 700 and metadata including field list which is incorporated into the UI, the user being able to further write simple declarative, conditional, and/or control-flow statements in defined areas of the UI (i.e. outputs a second data field…)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Wilson would have allowed Levitt as modified to incorporate a variable extraction mechanism to present already declared variables from associated code as configuration candidates in order to ensure consistent usage of previously declared variables in combination with allowing the user to write simple declarative, conditional, and/or control-flow statements, and note that both references are directed to low or no code platforms that bind data sources to UI components.
As per claim 8, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 1. Levitt as modified does not expressly disclose, however Wilson discloses wherein the executing the generated code includes: outputting a first data field commonly existing in the field structure and the data field list to the screen through the UI component, and outputting a second data field, which exists in the data field list but does not exist in the field structure, to the screen through the UI component (Wilson, pars. 129, 134-137, 156-166, 175 disclose accessing data source 700 and metadata including field list which is incorporated into the UI, the user being able to further write simple declarative, conditional, and/or control-flow statements in defined areas of the UI (i.e. outputs a second data field…)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Wilson would have allowed Levitt as modified to incorporate a variable extraction mechanism to present already declared variables from associated code as configuration candidates in order to ensure consistent usage of previously declared variables in combination with allowing the user to write simple declarative, conditional, and/or control-flow statements, and note that both references are directed to low or no code platforms that bind data sources to UI components.
As per claim 9, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 1. Levitt as modified does not expressly disclose, however Wilson discloses wherein the config information includes information on a UI component set to be output to a screen at the time of execution of the target software and table information of a database associated with the UI component, and the executing the generated code includes: updating a status flag value of some of a plurality of records output through the UI component during execution of the generated code, when an event for manipulating some of the plurality of records is monitored, selecting an update record among the plurality of records based on the status flag value when a preset database update condition is satisfied, and reflecting a value of the update record in a table of the associated database (See Wilson as cited in the rejection of claims 4 and 7 and see pars. 163-167, fig. 10 – note that the table information associated with a UI component is shown in 1002 wherein the priority field comprises a numerical priority indicator (i.e. status flag) that is updateable and wherein a user’s activity with at least one row (i.e. when an event for manipulating…) includes being able to filter, sort/re-arrange, select, etc. (i.e. preset database update condition is satisfied) and which results in displaying records in a manner that is accurate as stored in the database (i.e. reflects a value of the update record in a table of the associated database)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Wilson would have allowed Levitt as modified to incorporate a DB table querying mechanism in order to allow for the selection of data fields from backed DB tables during configuration and note that both references are directed to low or no code platforms that bind data sources to UI components.
As per claim 10, Levitt as modified discloses the software development platform of claim 9, wherein the executing the generated code includes resetting the status flag value of the update record after reflecting the value of the update record in the table (see rejection of claim 9 and Wilson pars. 163-167).
As per claim 11, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 9, wherein the status flag value of some of the records is determined based on a type of the manipulation, and a type of an update operation for reflecting the value of the update record in the table is determined based on the status flag value of the update record (see rejection of claim 9 and Wilson pars. 163-167, note that the table information associated with a UI component is shown in 1002 wherein the priority field comprises a numerical priority indicator (i.e. status flag) that is updateable and wherein a user’s activity with at least one row).
As per claim 12, Levitt as modified discloses The software development platform of claim 11, wherein the executing the generated code includes: determining whether the update record exists in the table when the status flag value of the update record indicates a deletion state, and reflecting the value of the update record in the table based on the result of determination (see rejection of claim 9 and Wilson pars. 163-167).
As per claims 15, 17, 18, and 19, they are analogous to claims above and thus likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 September 2026 have been fully considered. With respect to the prior art rejection, Rao et al., Pub. No.: US 20170168854 A1, has been applied in response to claim amendments.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, on page 12 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the claimed features solve technical problems by comparing a configured data list with an acquired field structure to determine data fields for display, thereby improving software quality. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely recite acquiring and comparing information and determining information for display based on the comparison, without specifying a particular technological improvement to computer functionality. Applicant relies on paragraph 109 of the specification, but the claims do not recite what this paragraph discloses (such as displaying fields omitted from the configured list, correcting configuration errors, etc.) The alleged improvement does not improve the operation of the computer itself.
Page 13 of the remarks argues that the claimed features are not conventional and are not disclosed in the prior art and therefore recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The absence of a limitation from prior art does not establish an inventive concept under Step 2B. The additional elements recite generic computer components, and the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
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 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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
