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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed application filed on September 18, 2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on April 21, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites “for each form field, generate a client script for the appearance, the value related dependency, the constraint related dependency, or any combination thereof”.
Claim 10 should read “
Claim 15 recites “for each form field, generate one or more client scripts for the appearance, the value related dependency, the constraint related dependency, or any combination thereof for loading a second form associated with the first cloud-based automation platform.”
Claim 15 should read “
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. In claim 1, the omitted elements are: “obtain information related to an appearance, a value related dependency, and a constraint related dependency of the form fields from the parsed custom form schema; generate a client script for at least one of the appearance, the value related dependency, the constraint related dependency for loading a second form associated with the first cloud-based automation platform; and presenting, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, a second form using the persisted custom form schema in the second defined data format, wherein the second form is to provide a capability of recording a change event and trigger an action on the second form depending upon the change event based on the translated custom form schema.”
In claims 10 and 15, the omitted elements are: “translating, using the integration plugin, the custom form schema into a second defined data format supported by the first cloud-based automation platform based on the parsed custom form schema; and persisting, using the integration plugin, the translated custom form schema in a database associated with the first cloud-based automation platform; and presenting, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, a second form using the persisted custom form schema in the second defined data format, wherein the second form is to provide a capability of recording a change event and trigger an action on the second form depending upon the change event based on the translated custom form schema.”
Claims 2-9, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claims 2-7, 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 17 recite “presenting, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, a second form using the persisted custom form schema in the second defined data format, wherein the second form is to provide a capability of recording a change event and trigger an action on the second form depending upon the change event based on the translated custom form schema”. It is unclear how provide capability to the second form to record changes and trigger action would actually perform the tasks of recording changes and trigger action. It is not clear whether the second form would actually perform those tasks at a high level of performance or capacity. There is no evidence in the claims that the second form is performed those functions. It is also unclear as to what action the second form would trigger.
Claim 2 should read “presenting, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, a second form by dynamically executing a client script associated with each form field in an event of loading the second form or a change of a value of a form field of the second form.”
Claim 17 should read “presenting, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, a second form by dynamically executing a client script associated with each form field in an event of loading the second form or a change of a value of a form field of the second form.”
Claim 3 recites “enabling to perform the management functions of the second cloud-based automation platform through the first cloud-based automation platform using the second form, wherein the second form is used to submit information, a request, or to create a task corresponding to the second cloud-based automation platform”. It is unclear how claim 3 which is depended on claim 2 and recited “the second form is used to submit information, a request, or to create a task corresponding to the second cloud-based automation platform” when claim 2 previously recited “the second form is to provide a capability of recording a change event and trigger an action”.
Claim 5 recites “wherein translating the custom form schema into the second defined data format comprises: programmatically generating a client script for an appearance of each form field, wherein the client script, when executed, is to provide an appearance of a form field in the second form”.
This claimed limitation should read “wherein translating the custom form schema into the second defined data format comprises: programmatically generating a client script for an appearance of each form field
Claim 6 recites “wherein translating the custom form schema into the second defined data format comprises: programmatically generating a client script for each dependency of the form fields, wherein the client script, when executed, is to populate a value in a first form field that is dependent on a second form field in an event of change of a value of the second form field.”
This claimed limitation should read “wherein translating the custom form schema into the second defined data format comprises: programmatically generating a client script for each dependency of the form fields
Claim 7 recites “wherein translating the custom form schema into the second defined data format comprises: programmatically generating a client script for each form field, wherein the client script, when executed, is to populate a default value in a form field in an event of loading of the second form.”
This claimed limitation should read “wherein translating the custom form schema into the second defined data format comprises: programmatically generating a client script for each form field
Claims 11 and 16 recite “wherein the integration plugin is to: persist the client script associated with each form field in a database associated with the first cloud-based automation platform by making a platform call that enables the integration plugin to interact with the database.” It is unclear how a platform call would make that enables the integration plugin to interact with the database
Claims 3-7, 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
The limitation “parsing, using the integration plugin, the custom form schema to determine form fields and dependency of the form fields” in claims 1, 15 and 20, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using the integration plugin”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “using the integration plugin “parsing”, in the context of these claims encompasses the user mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper would parse the custom form schema to determine form fields and dependency of the form fields.
The limitation “generate a client script for the appearance, the value related dependency, the constraint related dependency, or any combination thereof” in claims 10 and 15, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using the integration plugin”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “using the integration plugin “generate”, in the context of these claims encompasses the user mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper would generate a client script for an appearance.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements “executing, using an integration plugin installed on a first cloud-based automation platform running in a first management node, a schedule job to obtain an application programming interface (API) response from a second management node executing a second cloud-based automation platform, the API response comprising a custom form schema of a first form associated with the second cloud-based automation platform in a first defined data format”; “translating, using the integration plugin, the custom form schema into a second defined data format supported by the first cloud-based automation platform based on the parsed custom form schema”; “persisting, using the integration plugin, the translated custom form schema in a database associated with the first cloud-based automation platform”; and “obtain information related to an appearance, a value related dependency, and a constraint related dependency of the form fields from the parsed custom form schema”.
The limitation “translating, using the integration plugin, the custom form schema into a second defined data format supported by the first cloud-based automation platform based on the parsed custom form schema”; “persisting, using the integration plugin, the translated custom form schema in a database associated with the first cloud-based automation platform”; and “obtain information related to an appearance, a value related dependency, and a constraint related dependency of the form fields from the parsed custom form schema”, amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “executing, using an integration plugin installed on a first cloud-based automation platform running in a first management node, a schedule job to obtain an application programming interface (API) response from a second management node executing a second cloud-based automation platform, the API response comprising a custom form schema of a first form associated with the second cloud-based automation platform in a first defined data format”, represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Further the claimed “processor”, “memory” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The independent claims 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering, and executing steps, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed Ina merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPO2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPO2d at 1092- 93).
The “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage media” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 10 and 15 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-14 and 16-20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “presenting, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, a second form using the persisted custom form schema in the second defined data format, wherein the second form is to provide a capability of recording a change event and trigger an action on the second form depending upon the change event based on the translated custom form schema”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for presenting a second form, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same rationale applies claim 15.
Claim 3 recites “enabling to perform the management functions of the second cloud-based automation platform through the first cloud-based automation platform using the second form, wherein the second form is used to submit information, a request, or to create a task corresponding to the second cloud-based automation platform”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for performing the management functions of the second cloud-based automation platform, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same rationale applies claim 16.
Claim 4 recites “programmatically generating a client script for an appearance of a form field in the second form, a value related dependency of the form field in the second form, a constraint related dependency of the form field in the second form, or any combination thereof”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 5 recites “programmatically generating a client script for an appearance of each form field, wherein the client script, when executed, is to provide an appearance of a form field in the second form”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 6 recites “programmatically generating a client script for each dependency of the form fields, wherein the client script, when executed, is to populate a value in a first form field that is dependent on a second form field in an event of change of a value of the second form field”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 7 recites “programmatically generating a client script for each form field, wherein the client script, when executed, is to populate a default value in a form field in an event of loading of the second form”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 8 recites “a dependency of one form field on another form field for a value; a dependency of a form field to get a default value on loading of the form field; a dependency of one form field on another form field for visibility; a dependency of one form field on another form field for making the form field read-only; a dependency of one form field's mandatory nature on a value of another form field; a dependency of a form field to get a value from an external source; or a validation on the value provided into the form field”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for getting a default value on loading of the form field, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the custom form schema comprises information indicating an appearance of the fields on the form, value of the fields, constraint for the fields, and dependencies of the fields”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for indicating an appearance of the fields on the form, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 11 recites “persist the client script associated with each form field in a database associated with the first cloud-based automation platform by making a platform call that enables the integration plugin to interact with the database”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for persisting the client script associated with each form field, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 12 recites “present, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, a second form by dynamically executing the client script associated with each form field in an event of loading the second form or a change of a value of a form field of the second form”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for presenting a second form, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 recites “retrieve the client script associated with the form field in the event of loading the form field of the second form or a change of a value of the form field of the second form and execute the retrieved client script to populate a default value in the form field, populate a value based on the value related dependency of the form field, apply a rule to the form field, or a combination thereof”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for retrieving the client script associated with the form, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “execute the client script for the appearance of the form field to provide an appearance of the form field in the second form; execute the client script for the value related dependency to populate a value in a first form field that is dependent on a second form field in an event of change of a value of the second form field or to populate a default value in the form field during loading of the form field; execute the client script for the constraint related dependency to apply a validation rule on the value provided in the form field; or any combination thereof”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing the client script, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 16 recites “persist the one or more client scripts associated with each form field in a database associated with the first cloud-based automation platform by making a platform call that enables the integration plugin to interact with the database”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for persisting the client script associated with each form field, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 17 recites “present, via a user interface associated with the first cloud-based automation platform, the second form using the persisted one or more client scripts, wherein the second form is to provide a capability of recording a change event and trigger an action on the form depending upon the change event by dynamically executing the one or more client scripts”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for presenting the second form, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 18 recites “in the event of loading a form field of the second form or a change of a value of the form field of the second form, retrieve the client script associated with the form field; and execute the retrieved client script to populate a default value in the form field, populate a value based on the value related dependency of the form field, apply a rule to the form field, or a combination thereof”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for retrieving the client script associated with the form field, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 recites “ execute the client script for the appearance of the form field to provide an appearance of the form field in the second form; execute the client script for the value related dependency to populate a value in a first form field that is dependent on a second form field in an event of change of a value of the second form field or to populate a default value in the form field during loading of the form field; execute the client script for the constraint related dependency to apply a validation rule on the value provided in the form field; or any combination thereof”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing the client script for the appearance of the form field, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 recites “prior to parsing the custom form schema, delete a previous version of the first form associated with the second cloud-based automation platform and associated client scripts from a database associated with the first cloud-based automation platform”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for deleting a previous version of the first form, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200007556 A1 (involved in minimizing syntax requirements with limited flexibility, expressing a logic layer and a layout/presentation layer within declarative language to reduce complexity, time and errors or unintended effects of the logic based on the presentation layer. The method enables utilizing a code execution engine as fully compiled code in visual editing environment to achieve simultaneous experience of a behavior for different devices).
US 20150293961 (involved in facilitating unified and normalized management of an object within a structured data store on a machine and/or across different machines)
US 20230315415 (involved in receiving an assembly language program identifying data flows through memory locations represented by memory variables and identifying instructions configured to transform data in the data flows)
US 20200344325 (involved in receiving a schema with a tag and a parameter. The schema represents a change to be made to a converged infrastructure environment. The schema is received from a cloud-based service to the on-site converged infrastructure environment. An executable script template is selected from a store of executable script templates using the tag. An executable script is generated from the executable script template, which includes populating the executable script template with the parameter. The executable script is run against a component of the converged infrastructure environment)
US 20230236828 (involved in providing a quick and easy way of adding new custom adapters for an integration service in a cloud computing environment by a build-independent framework, automatically creates the custom adapter through a build Application Programming Interface (API) and automatically validates the created custom adapter by a validation API, thus eliminating the need for a framework owner to continually support the latest versions of the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) in order to remain compatible, and hence reducing the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for an adapter).
US 20230161497 (involved in storing metadata including determined relationships and application data associated with cloud services in cloud-based immutable storage devices at defined intervals).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571)272-4215. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2162 September 16, 2025