Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/6/26 has been entered.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites
As per claims 1, 11,17, A method for classifying hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering: obtain the hierarchical product parameters associated with the offering within the hierarchy of operational factors, the hierarchical product parameters including at least one lower-tier hierarchical product parameter of the offering, wherein a lower-tier hierarchical product parameter comprises at least one of a feature and a sub-feature, wherein the lower-tier hierarchical product parameter is defined with an identifier; retrieve the identifier associated with the obtained lower-tier hierarchical product parameter, wherein the identifier is indicative of a hierarchical structure and a location of the lower-tier hierarchical product parameter; determine an address associated with the retrieved identifier; classify the lower-tier hierarchical product parameter under an appropriate hierarchical product parameter based on the determined address, the appropriate hierarchical product parameter including at least one of a higher-tier hierarchical product parameter and an other lower-tier hierarchical product parameter, wherein the higher-tier hierarchical product parameter comprises at least one of the offering and a capability in the hierarchy of operational factors; establish a hierarchical link between the classified lower-tier hierarchical product parameter and the appropriate hierarchical product parameter, wherein the hierarchical link is indicative of a logical relationship between the classified lower-tier hierarchical product parameter and the appropriate hierarchical product parameter; and update a hierarchical product parameter map based on the classification of the lower-tier hierarchical product parameter, wherein the hierarchical product parameter map is a structured representation of the hierarchical product parameters and their relationships within the hierarchy of operational factors for the offering.
As per claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the hierarchy of operational factors is formed of: the capability as a sub-unit of the offering, wherein the capability represents functions performed by the offering; the feature as a sub-unit of the capability, wherein the feature represents an item configurable to perform a capability; and a microservice as a sub-unit of the feature, the microservice representing an executable piece of a programming file for performing the capability; and a sub-module as a sub-unit of the microservice; wherein the hierarchical product parameter comprises at least one of the capability, the feature, the microservice, and the sub-module.
As per claims 5,13,18, wherein to determine the address associated with the identifier, the processor is to: extract the address directly from the identifier when the address is explicitly specified in the retrieved identifier.
As per claim 6,14,19, wherein to determine the address associated with the identifier, the processor is to: obtain at least one of a specification file and a configuration file; extract an information associated with the address from at least one of the specification file and the configuration file, when the address is not explicitly specified in the retrieved identifier; and merge the extracted information to identify the address.
As per claim 7. The system of claim 6, wherein the specification file is a formal document indicative of one or more of a structure, endpoints, parameters, and responses of an API and the configuration file is a routing-rule document indicative of URL patterns and information associated with the address.
As per claim 8,15,20, wherein to determine the address associated with the identifier, the processor is to: extract the information associated with the address from a product parameter seed, wherein the product parameter seed is a structured data object derived from a plurality of connected data sources, each connected data source from amongst the plurality of connected data sources being operated in connection with the unified platform; extract the information associated with the address from recorded values of the lower-tier hierarchical product parameter stored in a pin table, wherein the pin table is a structured database to record modifications to hierarchical product parameters, and wherein the recorded values include at least one of a user-defined or system-defined modifications of the address; and identify the address based on the information from the product parameter seed and information from recorded values of the lower-tier hierarchical product parameter.
As per claim 9,16, wherein the processor is further configured to extract the information associated with the address from the hierarchical product parameter map, wherein the hierarchical product parameter map includes user-provided names for address or a group of address, wherein the group of address includes a common user-provided name.
As per claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the offering comprises at least one of a product and a service.
The claims are directed towards classifying hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering.
Therefore the claims and the specification is drawn to mental processes which includes observations(the step of obtain and retrieve), evaluations, judgements, and opinions(the step of determine, classify, extract, merge, identify) and the step of establishing a hierarchical link and updating a hierarchical product parameter map are processes which can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper (e.g., a human drawing a representation of the lower-tier and appropriate hierarchical product parameters and making edits or changes to a hierarchical product parameter map).
If the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation covers limitation that is drawn to mental processes but for recitation of a generic computer and/or generic computer components described at a high level of generality or linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites additional elements such as
As per claims 1, A system for classifying hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering operating in a unified platform, the system comprising: a processor to:
17. A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium storing program comprising instructions for classification of hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering operating in a unified platform, the instructions being executable by a processor to
As per claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the unified platform comprises at least one of a developer-end ecosystem and a user-end ecosystem.
As per claim 4, 12, wherein the identifier is an Application Programming Interface (API) path, the API path being defined as Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and the address being a domain of the URL.
As per claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the offering operating in the unified platform.
The claim does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of As per claims 1, A system for classifying hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering operating in a unified platform, the system comprising: a processor to: 17. A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium storing program comprising instructions for classification of hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering operating in a unified platform, the instructions being executable by a processor to As per claim 4, 12, wherein the identifier is an Application Programming Interface (API) path, the API path being defined as Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and the address being a domain of the URL. As per claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the offering operating in the unified platform. are generic computer components described at a high level of generality and limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or adding the words “apply it”(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recites As per claim 2, wherein the unified platform comprises at least one of a developer-end ecosystem and a user-end ecosystem, which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, in this case to developer environment. Such limitation are not enough to add significantly more to the claimed method and/or is an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment for which to apply the underlying abstract concept, which does not add significantly more. The claims is directed to an abstract idea and merely links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, chat/Instant Messaging,(MPEP 2106.05(h))
In an alternative, the steps of obtaining and retrieving can be can be interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (pre and post-solution activity) to the judicial exception. The steps for obtaining and retrieving is merely the pre-solution activity of data gathering step. Accordingly, the additional limitation/elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even considering all the additional element in combination, they are just providing a computerized system to perform the invention, but doesn’t improve the computing technology as the additional elements do not integrate the invention into a practical application, rather the claims and the additional limitations are drawn to an abstract idea that uses a computer as a tool with the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims is directed to an abstract idea and with the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not patent eligible and directed to an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore the additional limitation/elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even considering all the additional element in combination, they are just providing a computerized system to perform the invention, but doesn’t improve the computing technology as the additional elements do not integrate the invention into a practical application, rather the claims and the additional limitations are drawn to classifying hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering. The claims is directed to an abstract idea and merely reciting generic computer components described at a high level of generality and limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or adding the words “apply it”(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f) and links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, developer environment(MPEP 2106.05(h)) with insignificant extra-solution activity (pre and post-solution activity) to the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2A, prong2).
The claim does not include additional elements/limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements/limitations is drawn to limitations that use a computer as a tool, and includes well-understood, routine, and conventional activities(ie. receiving or transmitting data over a network MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The claim is not patent eligible(Step 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
US 2015/0379442 issued to Samanthapudi et al., teaches an administrator may create a business object model or a product model with a set of guidelines and structure to generate a first configurable product. A modeler may use the object model or the product model in accessing a configuration server. Using the configuration server the modeler may define a first component (i.e., part, feature, or option) in the first configurable product. The first configurable product may then be published or made available in a library or repository.
US 2013/0339932 issued to Holler et al., teaches reporting build runs includes: obtaining code changes for a software product; identifying the code change as affecting a work item of a software product under development, the work item specifies a feature to be added to or a defect to be removed from the software product; generating (i) a plurality of build runs of the software product, respective build runs corresponding to one or more code changes; and (ii) data associating the work item with one or more build runs that each correspond to at least one of the one or more code changes specified as involving the work item
US 8,626,798 issued to Gu et al, which teaches accessing a product category tree, the product category tree comprising a plurality of hierarchical levels. A leaf category level of the plurality of hierarchical levels comprises a leaf category node. The leaf category node includes product information. The product information comprises a plurality of product attribute parameters. The plurality of product attribute parameters comprises standard product information. Data processing further includes selecting, among the plurality of product attribute parameters that correspond to the leaf category node, a representative product attribute parameter that is representative of the product information; and partitioning standard product information of the leaf category node to obtain a plurality of sets using the representative product attribute parameter, wherein each of the plurality of sets includes at least some of the standard product information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACKHEAN TIV whose telephone number is (571)272-5654. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 5:30-3:30.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/BACKHEAN TIV/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights