DETAILED ACTION
This is Non-Final Office Action issued to replace the Office Action mailed October 7, 2025, due to issues related to an abstract idea. Claims 1-12 have been cancelled. Claims 13-32 are pending.
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 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “retrieving from memory a set of models comprising ontologies, taxonomies and annotation models; displaying for a user the set of models; receiving from the user a configuration of the ontology and taxonomy models; receiving from the user a configuration of annotation models; receiving from the user an assignment of annotation model elements against ontology and taxonomy model elements; receiving from the user a set of configuration parameters for existing data system technical systems; reading the assigned user selections and configurations, and applying a declarative generation system to create one or more data schema, including multiple versions of said data schema; reading the assigned user selections and configurations, and applying a declarative generation system to create deployment artefacts for the data schema intended for the various technical systems; and sending these deployment artifacts and associated data schema into various data system technical systems”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 13-32 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 13-30 method or a process, claim 31 a system or machine, and claim 32 a computer readable medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 recites, at its core, the limitations directed to retrieving, displaying,, and receiving user configurations..., assigning relationships between models…, generating schemas and deployment artifacts based on rules/configurations, and sending results to systems. These limitations are fundamental in nature, and can be characterized as mental processes (e.g., evaluating, electing, assigning relationships, applying rules), and/or methods of organizing/ analyzing information (e.g., model configuration, schema generation, mapping data structures). There is no technical implementation detail regarding how these steps are performed beyond generic computer components (e.g. “memory,” “system,” and “user input”), and the claim merely recites functional results using such generic components. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as “declarative generation system,” which is purely functional and undefined as well as “data schema” and “deployment artifacts,” which are outputs of information processing. The step of “sending …into various data system technical systems” constitutes generic post-solution activity. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, to a data storage structure at a technical level, or to network or system operation. Rather, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, instead of improving the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to satisfy step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as memory, user interface (e.g., display/receiving input), a generic “declarative generation system”, and generic “technical systems”. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and are described as performing their ordinary functions rather than any specific structural or technological improvement. The claim does not recite any unconventional data structure, specific algorithm, or technical improvement or architecture. Thus, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because the mere implementation on a computer does not provide significantly more.
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the ontology models comprise definitions of the meaning of data and relationships between data, and taxonomy models comprise common classification schemes that can be linked to any ontology model element and hence extend the meaning of data classified by the ontology.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 15 recites “metadata statements that can be applied against any ontology or taxonomy element…version number; any industry classification schemes or standards; any ad-hoc grouping or tag; group membership within a nominated data schema; and type of data system technical system for deployment” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein the different ontology, taxonomy and annotation models and user configurations of said models define multiple different allowable configurations of data system data schema and deployment configurations for different types of data system technical systems, from the totality of possible configurations permitted by the models” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 17 recites “the declarative generation system retrieves from memory the set of ontology, taxonomy and annotation models and user configurations, and applies the annotation model metadata statements to determine what ontology and taxonomy model elements to select and group for inclusion in different data schema, and the intended data system technical systems to instantiate these schema on” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 18 recites “the declarative generation system uses a combination of custom code encoding transformation and generation rules to accord with the annotation models, and mappings between ontology languages and other computer data languages such as integration schema languages, programmatic API data schema languages, and data storage schema languages” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the mappings are in a format selected from R2RML, SPARQL, RML, YAML, AVRO, JSON-LD, and JSON” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the declarative generation system retrieves from memory the declaratively generated data schema and the intended data system technical systems, and generates the required deployment artifacts and sends these to the technical systems to prepare them to receive data in accordance with the meaning specified by the matching data schema” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 21 recites “wherein the types of data system technical systems may consist of: event and message based integration systems; relational, graph and other no-SQL data storage systems; programmatic API systems; and data transformation systems” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 22 recites “wherein the meaning and structure of data is preserved and made explicit across all elements of the total data system and across all data lifecycles by nature of being declaratively generated from the same source ontology, taxonomy and annotation models, irrespective of modifications and selections from said models or target technical system” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 23 recites “wherein the runtime behavior of the data system once deployed, can be further modified by changing, adding or removing data schema through additional declarative generation steps triggered by subsequent user configuration of already deployed annotation models and associated taxonomy and ontology models” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 24 recites “wherein the data system may be extended to support new or changed data standards through addition of new annotation models applied to the ontology and taxonomy models, resulting in declarative generation of new data schema and deployment of same, without modifying or impacting existing deployed data schema within the total data system” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 25 recites “wherein the system can concurrently preserve existing deployed versions of said standards, and the user selections and customizations made to the models and resulting declaratively generated data schema, while also preserving the meaning of data across those versions within the data system” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 26 recites “wherein an ontology model that defines the meaning of provenance may be included, and the user may use a provenance annotation to select and configure what parts of the ontology and taxonomy to apply this provenance ontology model to, and the declarative generation system will build provenance into the generated data schema and deploy this into the data system technical systems” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 27 recites “wherein the meaning and structure of business instance data, technical systems configuration, and various data schema specifications, are defined through declarative generation from ontology, taxonomy and annotation models” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 28 recites “wherein the ontology and taxonomy languages are in a format selected from RDF, OWL and SPARQL” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 29 recites “wherein the generated data schema for integration technical systems are in a format selected from Apache AVRO and JSON” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 30 recites “wherein the generated programmatic API data schemas are in a format selected from JSON, YAML and OpenAPI” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 31 and 32 are rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-32 are allowed over the art of record. However, they would be allowed if rewritten in a form that overcomes the § 101 issues.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, Wenzel et al. (US 20170286456 A1) discloses a method for declarative generation from ontology, taxonomy and annotation models (¶[0041], Wenzel, i.e., declarative generation’s ontology that defines a formal naming, properties, usage and relationships of the elements that are used within the model and ontology instance data represents data that describes objects associated with a standard and/or a data model (e.g., one of models 22 of Fig.1), and user configurations of same (Fig.1; ¶[0030] and [0062], Wenzel), of all data schema (¶[0041], Wenzel) and deployment configurations required in a data system (¶[0080]-[0081], Wenzel), comprising: retrieving from memory a set of models comprising ontologies, taxonomies and annotation models (¶[0030],[0039]-[0041], [0073]-[0074], [0077], [0080]-[0082] and [0150], Wenzel, i.e. retrieve the assets from the asset library for reuse in configuration models for particular objects in ontology schema that define the meaning, usage and relationships “taxonomies” and relationship metadata statements “annotation”);
displaying for a user the set of models (¶[0082]-[0084] and [0096], Wenzel);
receiving from the user a configuration of the ontology and taxonomy models comprising selections, removals and/or customizations (¶[0094]-[0096] and [0113], Wenzel, i.e., selection of models and removal including classifier removal, artifact addition, artifact removal and relationship removal ); receiving from the user a configuration of annotation models comprising selection, removal, and/or customizations (¶[0094]-[0096] and [0113], Wenzel); receiving from the user a set of configuration parameters for existing data system technical systems (¶[0094]-[0096] and [0113], Wenzel); reading the assigned user selections and configurations (¶[0082]-[0084], Wenzel, i.e., Unique numeric code randomly generated by NCI Thesaurus (NCIt) and assigned to individual CDISC controlled terms), and applying a declarative generation system to create one or more data schema, including multiple versions of said data schema, in various formats required by the various data system technical systems (¶[0079]-[0082] and [0084], Wenzel, i.e., generate ontology instance data to include data indicative of each of the assets included in the data model, data indicative of the metadata attributes for each of the assets, and data indicative of values for each of the metadata attributes for each of the assets and data indicative of the values for each of the properties of the metadata attributes). However, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest “receiving from the user an assignment of annotation model elements against ontology and taxonomy model elements and reading the assigned user selections and configurations, and applying a declarative generation system to create deployment artefacts for the data schema intended for the various technical systems; and sending these deployment artifacts and associated data schema into various data system technical systems, and configuring these for operation.”
The dependent claims, being further limiting to the independent claims, definite and enabled by the Specification are also allowed.
Other Prior Art Made of Record
McKay et al. (US 20230196138 A1) disclose labeling platform declarative model.
Watt et al. (US 20210319372 A1) disclose ontologically-driven business model system and method.
Sarferaz (US 20210342738 A1) discloses machine learning-facilitated data entry.
Van Dusen (US 11080336 B2) discloses system and method for fuzzy concept mapping, voting ontology crowd sourcing, and technology prediction.
Anderson, III et al. (US 10623520 B1) disclose system and method for tagging in identity management artificial intelligence systems and uses for same, including context based governance.
Wenzel et al. (US 20170286456 A1) disclose dynamic ontology schema generation and asset management for standards for exchanging data.
Carlson et al. (US 20030046282 A1) disclose managing reusable software assets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
May 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights