CTNF 18/672,912 CTNF 87402 Detailed Action: Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1, 12, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, they recite the abstract idea of a mental process. A mental process includes, but is not limited to, concepts that can be performed in the human mind. This includes observing, evaluating, judging or forming an opinion. PART I. 2A-RONG ONE (IDENTIFY THE ABSTRACT IDEAS) The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)). Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claims are directed towards customizing contracts using natural language modeling and their verification. The independent claim 1 and similar claims 12 and 20 recite , “receive a set of one or more input questions for an operations plan, the operations plan being associated with a data schema and an optimization model; generate a customized advanced planning tool (APT) providing a customized function to enable an advanced planning system (APS) to address at least a given one of the one or more input questions by: retrieving, from a database, a generic APT contract defining one or more input parameters and an output schema for a generic function that is relevant to the given one input question; customizing the generic APT contract by mapping parameters defined in the data schema to placeholders in the generic APT contract to obtain a customized APT contract defining one or more customized input parameters and a customized output schema for the customized APT; obtain generic APT code corresponding to the generic APT contract, the generic APT code providing an implementation of the generic function; customizing the generic APT code by replacing placeholders in the generic APT code with parameters defined in the data schema, in accordance with the mapping, to obtain customized APT code providing the customized function of the customized APT, and deploying the customized APT code to obtain the executable customized APT; And performing verification of the customized APT by automatically performing test executions of the customized APT using one or more test inputs automatically generated using the data schema; and output the customized APT contract to a user device and store the executable customized APT ” are limitations directed to mental process. The abstract elements as a whole includes, receiving information (i.e. input questions), generating information (i.e. generic contract) from the received information, modifying information (i.e. custom code) based on the received information, testing the information (i.e. code) and then outputting information (i.e. custom contract). Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1, 10 and 14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A. PART I. 2A-PRONG TWO (ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION) Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. The claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “…non-transitory computer readable medium…processor…questions…code…contract…memory” which is pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, and as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See, MPEP 2106.05(f)) As a result, Examiner asserts that the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea. PART II. DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ELEMENT, OR COMBINATION, AMOUNTS TO “SIGNIFICANTLY MORE” THAN THE ABSTRACT IDEA ITSELF The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of: “…non-transitory computer readable medium…processor…memory…questions…code…contract…” Examiner asserts that these do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because each of the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See, MPEP 2106.05(f) This is evidenced by the Applicant’s Specification disclosing implementing the software on a generic computer using generic implementing software in a routine and conventional manner. Furthermore, they do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The dependent claims, claims 2-11 and 13-19, do not independently overcome 101, and are therefore, rejected based on their dependency of claim 1 and 12. The dependent claims alone or in combination recite similar elements which have already been found to be non-patent eligible. Furthermore, they do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as discussed above. Thus, all the claims are rejected under 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US Pub. No. 2025/0217753) (hereinafter, Makhija) in view of Makhija (US Pub. No. 2022/0206762) (hereinafter, Makhija ‘2022) in further view of Greenstein (US Pub. No. 20030195757) (hereafter, Greenstein) . As per claim 1 , Makhija teaches, a computing system comprising: a processing device configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to: (Abstract, Figure 1) receive a set of one or more input questions for an operations plan, the operations plan being associated with a data schema and an optimization model; (paragraph 111 and 113-115 and Fig. 9, noting on 111 “…The interface 900 shows a conversational chatbot enabling a user to create a contract. The chatbot with domain specific back end LLM agents executes the task identified from the text received as input at the interface screen. In this example embodiment, the LLM generates multiple clauses of a contract for a user…”) generate a customized advanced planning tool (APT) providing a customized function to enable an advanced planning system (APS) to address at least a given one of the one or more input questions by: retrieving, from a database, a generic APT contract defining one or more input parameters and an output schema for a generic function that is relevant to the given one input question; (paragraphs 52-55, noting on paragraph 52 “…Data modeling is done through template definitions and API calls to the shared frameworks platform layer. …” Further noting, on paragraphs 53-55, “… The platform will stay pristine and clean and be generic, while at the same time, enables truly custom features to be built in a lightweight and agile manner. The system of the invention is configured to adapt to the changes in the application due to the custom features and operate the application to manage one or more tasks to be executed…”) ` customizing the generic APT contract by mapping parameters defined in the data schema to placeholders in the generic APT contract to obtain a customized APT contract defining one or more customized input parameters and a customized output schema for the customized APT; (paragraphs 52-55, noting above notations) obtain generic APT code corresponding to the generic APT contract, the generic APT code providing an implementation of the generic function; (paragraph 45, noting “…This layer provides a set of microservices that execute the tasks of managing code deployment, supporting code versioning, deployment (gradual roll out of new code) etc. The layer collectively enables creation and management of smart forms (and templates), framework to define UI screens, controls etc. through use of templates…”) Makhija does not explicitly teach, however, Makhija ‘2022 does teach, customizing the generic APT code by replacing placeholders in the generic APT code with parameters defined in the data schema, in accordance with the mapping, to obtain customized APT code providing the customized function of the customized APT, and deploying the customized APT code to obtain the executable customized APT; (paragraphs 118, and 119, noting on paragraph 119, “…The platform provides base-level code, scripts, and integrations so users can prototype, build, or scale applications without developing complex infrastructures. Both developers and non-developers can use this tool for rapid application development with customized workflows and functionality…”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Makhija ‘225 within the invention of Makhija with the motivation of modifying the data flow through the enterprise application to accommodate operational requirements of the organization. (See, Makhija ‘2022 paragraphs 3 and 4) And Makhija/Makhija ‘2022 do not explicitly teach, however, Greenstein does teach, performing verification of the customized APT by automatically performing test executions of the customized APT using one or more test inputs automatically generated using the data schema; (paragraph 387, noting “… In one embodiment, in order to test customization or integration, the customization or integration activity to test is to be actually performed…”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Greenstein within the invention of Makhija in view of Makhija ‘2022 with the motivation of ensuring the customer receives a properly useful tool to generate contracts or workflows that are without errors. Makhija teaches, and output the customized APT contract to a user device and store the executable customized APT (paragraph 105, noting “…. The user inputs the query for creating a contract as: “I want to create a contract”. ...”) As per claim 2 , Makhija teaches, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to: receive, from the user device, natural language input providing the set of one or more input questions, code representing the optimization model and a data object representing the data schema (paragraph 111 and 113-115 and Fig. 9, see notations above) As per claim 3 . Makhija teaches, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to retrieve the generic APT contract by: obtaining a question embedding encoded from the given one input question and retrieving, from the database, the generic APT contract corresponding to a contract embedding that is similar to the question embedding (paragraphs 52-55, noting claim 1 notations) As per claim 4 , Makhija teaches, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to: generate a first customized APT contract to address a first question of the one or more input questions; (paragraphs 52-55, noting claim 1 notations) generate a second customized APT contract to address a second question of the one or more input questions, the first and second customized APT contracts being based on a common generic APT contract; (paragraphs 105-107 and all Fig. 8’s and their text) prior to obtaining customized APT code based on the first or second customized APT contracts, determine that the first and second customized APT contracts have identical mapping between parameters in the data schema and placeholders in the common generic APT contract; (paragraph 52, noting “…In an exemplary embodiment, a developer user or admin user will structure one or more SCM application and associated functionality by the application layer of microservices, either by leveraging the shared frameworks platform layer or through code to enable the notion of specific documents or through building complex functionality by intermingling shared frameworks platform capabilities with custom code. …”) and discard one of the first or second customized APT contracts, wherein customized APT code is only obtained for a remaining one of the first or second customized APT contracts (paragraph 52, see notation above) As per claim 5 , Makhija teaches, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to customize the generic APT code by: generating a code snippet to replace a placeholder code section in the generic APT code (paragraph 54) As per claim 6 , Makhija teaches, the computing system of claim 5, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to generate the code snippet by: generating a prompt to a large language model (LLM) to perform a code generation task, the prompt including code representing the optimization model, the operations plan, the customized APT contract and at least a portion of the generic APT code including the placeholder code section; and obtaining the generated code snippet as output from the LLM (paragraphs 80-81) As per claim 7 , Makhija/Makhija ‘2022 do not teach, however, Greenstein does teach, the computing system of claim 5, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to: receive an error during a particular test execution of the customized APT; and re-generate at least the code snippet using information from the received error (Fig. 60) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Greenstein within the invention of Makhija in view of Makhija ‘2022 with the motivation of ensuring the customer receives a properly useful tool to generate contracts or workflows that are without errors. As per claim 8 , Makhija/Makhija ‘2022 do not teach, however, Greenstein does teach, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to perform verification of the customized APT by: automatically generating the one or more test inputs, wherein the one or more test inputs include all possible values for a discrete input parameter defined in the data schema or include sample values within a numerical range defined for a numerical input parameter in the data schema (paragraphs 502-519, noting on paragraph 502 “… The business rules check is a process of applying a set of constraints on cost, profitability, timing, etc. pertinent to the business case of a service element. Input to the business rules is performed at initiation of SE development activities and includes, for instance: projected sales volumes, sales time period, required minimum profit margin, target maximum price, and/or target relative availability date…”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Greenstein within the invention of Makhija in view of Makhija ‘2022 with the motivation of ensuring the customer receives a properly useful tool to generate contracts or workflows that are without errors. As per claim 9 , Makhija/Makhija ‘2022 do not teach, however, Greenstein does teach, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to perform verification of the customized APT by: collecting one or more outputs generated by the test executions of the customized APT; and performing sensitivity analysis on the collected one or more outputs (paragraphs 335-338). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Greenstein within the invention of Makhija in view of Makhija ‘2022 with the motivation of ensuring the customer receives a properly useful tool to generate contracts or workflows that are without errors. As per claim 10 , Makhija/Makhija ‘2022 do not teach, however, Greenstein does teach, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to: include the one or more test inputs and corresponding outputs generated by the test executions of the customized APT in the customized APT contract (paragraph 387) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Greenstein within the invention of Makhija in view of Makhija ‘2022 with the motivation of ensuring the customer receives a properly useful tool to generate contracts or workflows that are without errors. As per claim 11 , Makhija teaches, the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to cause the system to: receive, from the user device, input revising the customized APT contract; wherein the customized APT code is obtained in accordance with the revised customized APT contract (paragraphs 105-107 and all Fig. 8’s and their text) As per claims 12-19 Claims 12-19 disclose similar limitations to the claims above, however, in a method form. Makhija discloses such form of their invention. (see, Abstract) Therefore, claims 12-19 are rejected based on the claims of 1-11 above. Claim 20: Claim 20 discloses similar limitations to claim 1 above, however, in a computer readable medium. Makhija discloses such a form of their invention. (see, at least claim 31). Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the limitations rejected of claim 1 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00. 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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. ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI Examiner Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 2 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 3 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 4 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 5 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 6 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 7 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 8 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 9 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 10 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 11 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 12 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 13 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 14 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 15 Art Unit: 3623 Application/Control Number: 18/672,912 Page 16 Art Unit: 3623
Prosecution Insights