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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “"Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility ("Update"), p. 7. The searching of clusters, based on feature vectors and according to a similarity metric, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Such searching requires the computation of similarity metrics across a large plurality of high-dimensional feature vectors (i.e., derived from integration platform as a service (iPaaS) data), grouped using unsupervised learning. Such computations require iterative numerical processing that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, even if a human could conceptually compare a small number of items.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that these argued limitations, as drafted, do not recite any particular additional elements for consideration. These limitations do not recite, for example, a computer or any particular additional element. Even assuming arguendo, the mere use of a computer to more quickly perform computations is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application or anything significantly more. “[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In particular, clustering using unsupervised learning is inherently an iterative numerical optimization process that repeatedly refines cluster assignments and centroids to minimize an objective function. As noted in the Wikipedia entry for "K-means clustering," "[t]he problem is computationally difficult (NP-hard)." In addition, an explanation model, such as the LIME model (i.e., Claim 7), requires systematic perturbation and model re-evaluation. See, e.g., Qian et al., "Pixel-Based Clustering for Local Interpretable Model- Agnostic Explanations" (https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/jaiscr-2025-0013). Such algorithms and models cannot practically be performed in the human mind.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that these limitations provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court "upheld the patentability of a claimed method 'for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask."' CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, "[b]ecause the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image), the method could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind," even though a human could theoretically compare a pixel in a digital image against a mask. Id. Similarly, the present claims require the manipulation of computer data structures, including the derivation of feature vectors, the construction of a database of clusters of the feature vectors using unsupervised learning, the application of a recommendation engine and an explanation to feature vectors, and the generation of multiple screens of a graphical user interface. In addition, the application of the recommendation engine and the explanation model to identify and visually represent pre-built integration processes, along with natural-language explanations, represent the output of modified computer data structures. Thus, the present claims do not recite an abstract idea for at least the same reasons that the patent-eligible claims in Research Corp. Techs. did not recite an abstract idea.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not recite rendering an image, comparing, pixel by pixel, an image against a mask, or “other particular manipulations of computer data structures.” Applicant has cited that the use of a computer to derive vectors and store data is analogous to that of Id. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the claims, as drafted, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application or anything significantly because the present claims are not analogous to the technological improvement recited in the claims of Id. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Essentially, all this claim requires is that two or more network monitors analyze network traffic data, which may, by the language of the claims, consist of something as simple as "error codes included in a network packet," and then generate integrated reports of suspicious activity. If the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by searching for error codes in network packets, the human mind is certainly not equipped to construct and search a cluster database for clusters containing similar feature vectors as an input feature vector,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner emphasizes that the claims in SRI Int’l were directed to a technological improvement over virus scanning, which is an improvement in computer technology and not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant’s claims are not directed to any such technological improvement over prior manual techniques, and therefore cannot reasonably be deemed eligible using the same rationale as was set forth in the SRI Int’l decision.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims did recite mental processes (they do not, as discussed above), these alleged mental processes are integrated into a practical application. In particular, embodiments of the claims improve an integration platform by providing a low-code or no-code programming environment, which identifies fully built software processes that can be easily installed on a user's integration platform, even when that user has no software expertise. This improves the iPaaS platform and graphical user interface by allowing users to populate their integration platforms without any programming expertise.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the present claims do not reflect Applicant’s purported improvement. The present claims merely recite a generic user interface and do not recite or describe the actual implementation of the integration platforms themselves. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “This results in the construction of a new integration process within a user's integration platform. This modification to an integration platform's operational configuration reflects a real, technical transformation, as opposed to the mere display of data.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the present claims do not recite, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, the implementation of the new integration process itself. Rather, the computer allows the user to generate a map of the integration process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In the present application, Applicant has drafted the claims to recite a specific method that enables automated recommendation and installation of integration processes, within an iPaaS environment, to improve the functioning and capabilities of integration platforms.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not recite installation of the integration processes themselves. The claims are merely using the computer as a mapping tool for the user.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The ordered combination of elements in this specific method are unconventional. In particular, the claims require deriving feature vectors from iPaaS data, performing unsupervised clustering, associating clusters with pre-built integration processes, matching organization-specific data to those clusters, applying an explanation model to generate natural-language explanations via a generative language model, and enabling the installation and interactive configuration of the pre-built integration processes. This is a multi-stage architecture that converts historical system data into deployable integration processes with explainability that improves trust in and understanding of the underlying artificial intelligence. See, e.g., Application, as filed, [0116].,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the present claims do not recite any particular improvements to artificial intelligence or the field of machine learning. The limitations related to machine learning provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In addition, the claimed embodiments utilize non-conventional data representations, including "an indication of one or more data endpoints in the integration data." These technological features, which are specific to integration platforms and system interoperability, enable more accurate clustering. In turn, the improved accuracy in clustering produces improved search results, which thereby produces improved coverage and operation in users' integration platforms.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The purported improvement of more accurate clustering or more accurate information, as drafted, would be an improvement to the abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1. This is not an improvement to the additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In summary, this is not a case of the inventors applying a computer to "a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce" that "is a building block of the modern economy." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2350. Rather, this is a case of the inventors teaching a computer how to do something that, previously, could only be done manually by humans, by employing a very specific set of models and rules in a specific order, which has never before been used by humans. Accordingly, McRO dictates that the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not provide a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality. The claims of McRo recite automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation, which provided a clear improvement to a computer functionality (i.e. computer animation). In contrast, the instant claims do not recite an analogous improvement to a computer functionality. The claims recite the mere application of unsupervised learning. The claims employ generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea that, even while limiting the use of the idea to a particular technical environment, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. Examiner has deemed Applicant’s arguments, in view of the available field of prior art, persuasive. The present claims, as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. See the allowable subject matter section below.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests amending the claims to correct the minor typographical error in the limitation of “representing components of that [[one]] one pre-built integration process, are arranged according to a design of that one pre-built integration process,”
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, 4-5, 7, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-16 are directed to a method, claim 17 is directed to a system, and claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 are related to identifying processes, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 17 and 18, including “retrieve global data for a plurality of organizations; wherein the global data comprise integration data and the profile data for each of a plurality of organizations; derive a plurality of feature vectors from the global data, wherein each of the plurality of feature vectors comprises a value for each of a plurality of features, and wherein the plurality of features comprises an indication of one or more data endpoints in the integration data; group the plurality of feature vectors into a plurality of clusters according to a clustering algorithm using unsupervised learning; associate at least one pre-built integration process, represented in the integration data, to each of the plurality of clusters; and in a recommendation process, retrieve organization-specific data for an organization, wherein the organization- specific data comprise organization-specific integration data, representing a plurality of integration processes on an integration platform of the organization, and organization-specific profile data, representing one or more attributes of the organization, for each of the plurality of integration processes, derive an input feature vector from the organization-specific data representing that integration process, wherein the input feature vector comprises a value for each of the plurality of features, the input feature vector, wherein the recommendation engine determines at least one cluster of one or more other feature vectors, from among the plurality of clusters, to which the input feature vector is similar according to a similarity metrics identify the at least one pre-built integration process associated with the at least one cluster, apply an explanation model to the input feature vector to produce indications of contributions of the plurality of features, and generate an explanation, comprising a natural-language expression, for the identified pre-built integration process, by generating a prompt based on the indications of the contributions, and a visual representation of each of the identified pre-built integration processes and a visual representation of the explanation for each of the identified pre-build integration processes, and wherein each visual representation of one of the identified pre-built integration processes is associated with an input for installing that one identified pre-built integration process on the integration platform of the organization.” These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of the preamble language, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the preamble language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the preamble language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 10-14 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 7 and 15-16 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites “a method comprising using at least one hardware processor to, in a recommendation process” within the preamble of the claim. Independent claim 17 recites a system comprising “at least one hardware processor; and software that is configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor.” Independent claim 18 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to,” which is recited in the preamble of the claim. Claims 1, 17, and 18 further recite “retrieve global data for a plurality of organizations on an integration platform as a service (iPaaS) platform,” “apply a recommendation engine to the input feature vector,” and “generate a screen of a graphical user interface.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 17, and 18 further recite “applying a generative language model to the prompt.” The limitations of utilizing the model provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 17, and 18 further recite “in response to selection of the input for installing one of the identified pre-built integration processes, redirect the graphical user interface to a screen comprising a virtual canvas on which shapes, representing components of that one one pre-built integration process, are arranged according to a design of that one pre-built integration process, and wherein the shapes are configured to be dragged and dropped, so as to enable rearrangement of the components of that one pre-built integration process on the virtual canvas.” The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 10-14 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 introduces the additional element of “wherein the explanation model is a Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) model.” The limitations of utilizing the model provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the recommendation process is automatically executed when the screen is requested.” Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “wherein the screen is a homepage of the graphical user interface for an authenticated user.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims above, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 recites “a method comprising using at least one hardware processor to, in a recommendation process” within the preamble of the claim. Independent claim 17 recites a system comprising “at least one hardware processor; and software that is configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor.” Independent claim 18 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to,” which is recited in the preamble of the claim. Claims 1, 17, and 18 further recite “retrieve global data for a plurality of organizations on an integration platform as a service (iPaaS) platform,” “apply a recommendation engine to the input feature vector,” and “generate a screen of a graphical user interface.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 17, and 18 further recite “applying a generative language model to the prompt.” The limitations of utilizing the model provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 17, and 18 further recite “in response to selection of the input for installing one of the identified pre-built integration processes, redirect the graphical user interface to a screen comprising a virtual canvas on which shapes, representing components of that one one pre-built integration process, are arranged according to a design of that one pre-built integration process, and wherein the shapes are configured to be dragged and dropped, so as to enable rearrangement of the components of that one pre-built integration process on the virtual canvas.” The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 10-14 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 7 introduces the additional element of “wherein the explanation model is a Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) model.” The limitations of utilizing the model provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the recommendation process is automatically executed when the screen is requested.” Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “wherein the screen is a homepage of the graphical user interface for an authenticated user.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims above, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Ali et al. (US 20250165849 A1) discloses retrieve organization-specific data for an organization, wherein the organization- specific data comprise organization-specific integration data, representing a plurality of integration processes on an integration platform of the organization, and organization-specific profile data, representing one or more attributes of the organization, derive an input feature from the organization-specific data representing that integration process, apply a recommendation engine to the input feature, wherein the recommendation engine determines at least one cluster, identify the at least one pre-built integration process associated with the at least one cluster, generate a screen of a graphical user interface, wherein the screen comprises a visual representation of each of the identified pre-built integration processes and a visual representation of the explanation for each of the identified pre-build integration processes, and wherein each visual representation of one of the identified pre-built integration processes is associated with an input for installing that one identified pre-built integration process on the integration platform of the organization. However, Ali fails to explicitly teach or disclose retrieve global data for a plurality of organizations on an integration platform as a service (iPaaS) platform, wherein the global data comprise integration data and the profile data for each of a plurality of organizations; derive a plurality of feature vectors from the global data, wherein each of the plurality of feature vectors comprises a value for each of a plurality of features, and wherein the plurality of features comprises an indication of one or more data endpoints in the integration data; group the plurality of feature vectors into a plurality of clusters according to a clustering algorithm using unsupervised learning; associate at least one pre-built integration process, represented in the integration data, to each of the plurality of clusters; and in a recommendation process, for each of the plurality of integration processes, derive an input feature vector from the organization-specific data, wherein the input feature vector comprises a value for each of the plurality of features, apply a recommendation engine to the input feature vector, wherein the recommendation engine determines at least one cluster of one or more other feature vectors, from among the plurality of clusters, to which the input feature vector is similar according to a similarity metrics apply an explanation model to the input feature vector to produce indications of contributions of the plurality of features, and generate an explanation, comprising a natural-language expression, for the identified pre-built integration process, by generating a prompt based on the indications of the contributions, and applying a generative language model to the prompt; in response to selection of the input for installing one of the identified pre-built integration processes, redirect the graphical user interface to a screen comprising a virtual canvas on which shapes, representing components of that one one pre-built integration process, are arranged according to a design of that one pre-built integration process, and wherein the shapes are configured to be dragged and dropped, so as to enable rearrangement of the components of that one pre-built integration process on the virtual canvas in response to selection of the input for installing one of the identified pre-built integration processes, redirect the graphical user interface to a screen comprising a virtual canvas on which shapes, representing components of that one one pre-built integration process, are arranged according to a design of that one pre-built integration process, and wherein the shapes are configured to be dragged and dropped, so as to enable rearrangement of the components of that one pre-built integration process on the virtual canvas.
Garg et al. (US 12353436 B1) discloses retrieve global data for a plurality of organizations on an integration platform as a service (iPaaS) platform, wherein the global data comprise integration data and the profile data for each of a plurality of organizations; derive a plurality of feature vectors from the global data, wherein each of the plurality of feature vectors comprises a value for each of a plurality of features; group the plurality of feature vectors into a plurality of clusters; derive an input feature vector from the organization-specific data, wherein the input feature vector comprises a value for each of the plurality of features, apply a recommendation engine to the input feature vector, wherein the recommendation engine determines at least one cluster of one or more other feature vectors, from among the plurality of clusters, to which the input feature vector is similar according to a similarity metric. However, Garg fails to explicitly teach or disclose and wherein the plurality of features comprises an indication of one or more data endpoints in the integration data; group the plurality of feature vectors into a plurality of clusters according to a clustering algorithm using unsupervised learning; associate at least one pre-built integration process, represented in the integration data, to each of the plurality of clusters; and in a recommendation process, for each of the plurality of integration processes, apply an explanation model to the input feature vector to produce indications of contributions of the plurality of features, and generate an explanation, comprising a natural-language expression, for the identified pre-built integration process, by generating a prompt based on the indications of the contributions, and applying a generative language model to the prompt.
Osman (US 20250390921 A1) discloses group the plurality of feature vectors into a plurality of clusters according to a clustering algorithm using unsupervised learning. However, Osman fails to explicitly teach or disclose and wherein the plurality of features comprises an indication of one or more data endpoints in the integration data; associate at least one pre-built integration process, represented in the integration data, to each of the plurality of clusters; and in a recommendation process, for each of the plurality of integration processes, apply an explanation model to the input feature vector to produce indications of contributions of the plurality of features, and generate an explanation, comprising a natural-language expression, for the identified pre-built integration process, by generating a prompt based on the indications of the contributions, and applying a generative language model to the prompt.
Eldan et al. (US 12169802 B1) discloses and wherein the plurality of features comprises an indication of one or more data endpoints in the integration data. However, Eldan fails to explicitly teach or disclose associate at least one pre-built integration process, represented in the integration data, to each of the plurality of clusters; and in a recommendation process, for each of the plurality of integration processes, apply an explanation model to the input feature vector to produce indications of contributions of the plurality of features, and generate an explanation, comprising a natural-language expression, for the identified pre-built integration process, by generating a prompt based on the indications of the contributions, and applying a generative language model to the prompt.
Fani Sani et al. (US 20240028996 A1) discloses apply an explanation model to the input feature vector to produce indications of contributions of the plurality of features. However, Fani Sani fails to explicitly teach or disclose associate at least one pre-built integration process, represented in the integration data, to each of the plurality of clusters; and in a recommendation process, for each of the plurality of integration processes, generate an explanation, comprising a natural-language expression, for the identified pre-built integration process, by generating a prompt based on the indications of the contributions, and applying a generative language model to the prompt.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Layton et al. (US 20220092028 A1) discloses generating workflows based on input feature vectors
Schmidt et al. (US 20250021309 A1) discloses a front-end development tool where users can drag and drop elements in a canvas
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 Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights