DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 4/28/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 16-18, 20-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (2020/0089524) in view of Roper, JR. et al. (2024/0303361).
As per claim 1, Nelson et al. teaches a method comprising: obtaining, via a spoke generation tool, documentation associated with an external system, wherein the documentation comprises natural language indicative of configuration information for a service provided by the external system [Nelson et al., paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0059-0060];
generating, via the spoke generation tool, a list of actions based on the documentation, wherein the list of actions comprises an action to be performed to access the service [Nelson et al., paragraph 0056];
receiving, via the spoke generation tool, an input requesting to modify the list of actions [Nelson et al., paragraph 0057];
updating, via the spoke generation tool, the list of actions based on the input [Nelson et al., paragraph 0059]; and
generating, via the spoke generation tool and based on the updated list of actions, a spoke comprising a communication interface configured to enable execution of the service provided by the external system [Nelson et al., paragraph 0032-0033].
But Nelson et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Roper, JR. et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the documentation corresponds to a set of associations that include account information details and access details for the service of the external system [Roper, JR. et al., paragraph 0152].
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 Nelson et al. with Roper, JR. et al. in order to enable the secure provision and usage of tools for digital engineering (including modeling and simulation applications) and certification of digitally engineered products,
As per claim 2, Nelson-Roper, JR. teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: receiving, via a cloud-based instance on which the spoke generation tool executes, a request to access the service of the external system from a client device; accessing, via the spoke, the service of the external system; and returning, via the cloud-based instance, execution results corresponding to the request to the client device [Nelson et al., paragraph 0047].
As per claim 6, Nelson-Roper, JR. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the input comprises: receiving a manual input from a spoke designer modifying the list of actions [Nelson et al., paragraph 0045].
As per claim 7, Nelson-Roper, JR. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the documentation comprises: receiving, via the spoke generation tool, a drag and drop input of the documentation, a copy and paste input of the documentation, or an upload input of the documentation [Nelson et al., paragraph 0035].
As per claim 9, Nelson-Roper, JR. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the list of actions corresponds to one or more representational state transfer (REST) steps that access the service and collectively define the spoke [Nelson et al., paragraph 0032].
As per claim 17, Nelson-Roper, JR. teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the operations comprise: prior to generating the spoke, submitting the spoke for review; receiving approval of the updated list of actions; and deploying the spoke based on receiving the approval [Nelson et al., paragraph 0043].
As per claim 18, Nelson-Roper, JR. teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute a cloud-based instance that is external to the external system, and wherein the cloud-based instance is configured to facilitate connection and communication between a client device and the service of the external system via the spoke [Nelson et al., paragraph 0051].
As per claim 20, Nelson-Roper, JR. teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the documentation defines an endpoint for the service, a pagination type associated with responses provided by the endpoint, mappings between descriptions of the service that appear in the responses and fields of database tables, or any combination thereof [Nelson et al., paragraph 0066].
Claims 16 and 21, 22 and 25-27 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3-5, 19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (2020/0089524) in view of Roper, JR. et al. (2024/0303361) and further in view of Cuomo et al. (2025/0131187).
As per claim 3, Nelson-Roper, JR. et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Cuomo et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein generating the list of actions comprises using one or more large language models (LLMs), wherein the one or more LLMs are configured to analyze the documentation for data corresponding to the list of actions [Cuomo et al., paragraph 0048].
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 Nelson et al. and Roper, JR. et al. with Cuomo et al. in order to enable generative AI systems to produce structured output that is compatible with, and may be reliably consumed by, downstream computer systems.
As per claim 4, Nelson-Roper, JR.-Cuomo teaches the method of claim 3, comprising training the one or more LLMs using one or more business process model and notation (BPMN) conventions, one or more industry standard operating procedures, one or more best industry practices, one or more publications, or any combination thereof [Cuomo et al., paragraph 0036].
As per claim 5, Nelson-Roper, JR.-Cuomo teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: displaying, via a chat interface of the spoke generation tool, one or more recommendations pertaining to the spoke, wherein the chat interface utilizes the one or more LLMs to generate the one or more recommendations [Cuomo et al., paragraph 0034].
As per claim 19, Nelson-Roper, JR.-Cuomo teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the input modifying the list of actions is provided via a chat interface [Cuomo et al., paragraph 0039].
Claims 23-24 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights