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 .
Priority
This application claims priority benefit from Indian Application No. 202411088242, filed on Nov. 14, 2024 in the India Patent Office.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim(s) (1), based on the following evaluation according to the subject matter eligibility test MPEP 2106 III, and giving the claim(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation in the light of the specification, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Evaluating Step 1: Does the claim fall within at least one statutory category?
Step 1 = Yes. The claim recites a series of steps, therefore, is a process.
Evaluating Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim Recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Step 2A Prong One = Yes. Claim 1 recites several abstract ideas.
Receiving a plurality of source domain objects and a plurality of destination domain objects from a user [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)];
analyzing the plurality of destination domain objects to extract predefined annotations [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)];
parsing the predefined annotations to extract mapping details and conditional details [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)];
traversing a metadata graph generated based on the predefined annotations to identify a matching path in a source domain that correlates with a class path present in the metadata graph, and evaluating at least one condition associated with the matching path using at least one source attribute value [Mathematical relationships]; and
mapping the at least one source attribute value to at least one destination attribute value, upon satisfying the at least one condition [Mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)]
Using a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator would not negate the mental/mathematical nature of the limitations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B.
Evaluating Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception into a practical application?
Step 2A Prong Two = No, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
The claim recites additional elements:
Applying the method by a processor;
storing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of source domain objects and the plurality of destination domain objects into a repository;
As for using a processor, adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) - adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
As for the “storing” limitation, as recited in the claim, is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Evaluating Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Step 2B = No.
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
As explained above, using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and storing data in a repository are considered insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim(s) (2-6), the claims are similarly rejected based upon the same rationale as given for their base claim(s) as they are seen to not remedy the deficiencies of their base claim(s) outlined above.
As to claims 8 and 15, the claims are substantially similar in scope to claim 1, with variations in claim type. Therefore, the claims are also rejected under 101 for the same reason of claim 1 as shown above.
As to claim(s) (9-13 and 15-19), the claims are similarly rejected based upon the same rationale as given for their base claim(s) 8 and 15, respectively, as they are seen to not remedy the deficiencies of their base claim(s) outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights