DETAILED ACTION
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 amendments filed 9/8/2025.
The instant application having application No. 19/094,575 filed on 3/28/2025, claims priority to the provisional application having application No. 63/570,976 filed on 3/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 11 are amended, claims 23-26 are added, claims 19-22 are canceled, claims 8 and 18 were previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9-17, and 23-26 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 23-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, -the existing enterprise computer system-.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, and 23-26 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 24 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN et al. (US 20240086239 A1 – hereinafter HERMAN) in view of GRIGORE et al. (US 20250199774 A1 -- hereinafter GRIGORE), Modi et al. (US 20170115978 A1 -- hereinafter Modi) and KANEKO (US 20190342174 A1 -- hereinafter KANEKO).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), HERMAN discloses A method of application modernization engine executed by one or more processors, the application modernization engine providing improved application development through simulated intelligence and expanded tooling, the method comprising (e.g. Summary. Para [0019] wherein ‘low-code’, and ‘no-code’ embodiments suggest simulated intelligence):
determining, by the application modernization engine, a collection of resources to support a first functionality within an existing enterprise computer system and provide a set of outcomes (e.g. Fig. 9A, steps 902 and 904. para [0150], “… The process automatically builds (904) metadata specifications of the identified assets and maintains these metadata specifications in a deployment repository as available constructs from which to develop services for deployment on one or more endpoint deployment architectures based on selected service endpoints. …” wherein the identified assets read on a collection of resource, metadata specifications of the identified assets read on a set of outcomes. The one or more computer systems read on the application modernization engine, see para [0149]);
developing, by the application modernization engine, an application including the collection of resources with no-code and full-code operations (e.g. Fig. 9A, steps 906 and 908. Para [0165], “Additionally or alternatively, implementation of the service is by a full code approach in which code is generated from the generic description to produce contained executable code, a no-code approach in which the generic description is input to an executing engine that uses the generic description to direct its processing to provide the service, …”);
deploying, by the application modernization engine, the application into the existing enterprise computer system (e.g. Fig. 9B, step 924. Para [0155], “… The process additionally deploys (924) the automatically provided program code to the endpoint deployment architecture. The deploying can expose the service executing on the endpoint deployment architecture for access according to the selected endpoint.”), wherein the deploying of the application comprises versioned deployment comprising zero downtime and versioning synchronization comprising initializing a new repository in an existing directory or by cloning an existing repository for saving and accessing versions of the application,
HERMAN does not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the full-code operations extend capabilities through one or more custom components; and
augmenting, by the application modernization engine, the application with a second functionality not present in the existing enterprise compute system,
wherein augmenting the application with the second functionality comprises processing a natural language statement to augment a business process model and generate a custom application and one or more corresponding user interfaces based on the business process.
(deploying, by the application modernization engine, the application into the existing enterprise computer system,) wherein the deploying of the application comprises versioned deployment comprising zero downtime and versioning synchronization comprising initializing a new repository in an existing directory or by cloning an existing repository for saving and accessing versions of the application, and
wherein the versioned deployment comprises a stepwise implementation of the application to achieve the zero downtime.
However, in analogous art, GRIGORE discloses
wherein the full-code operations extend capabilities through one or more custom components (e.g. Fig. 12, para [0161-0163], “[0163] If the user accepts the automation at 1250, the automation is generated at 1260. The automation may be a stand-alone application or an automation executed by an RPA robot. …” wherein the automation generated is a custom component); and
augmenting, by the application modernization engine, the application with a second functionality not present in the existing enterprise compute system (e.g. para [0155], “FIG. 10 is a flowchart illustrating a process 1000 for automatic code
generation for RPA, according to an embodiment of the present invention. …. The source data may include, but is not limited to, …, pseudocode for the desired task, …” wherein the desired task indicates a second functionality not present in the existing compute system),
wherein augmenting the application with the second functionality comprises processing a natural language statement to augment a business process model and generate a custom application and one or more corresponding user interfaces based on the business process (e.g. Fig. 10, para [0155-0158]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Herman with the invention of GRIGORE because it provides an improved approach to automatic code generation that uses a cognitive AI layer to translate an input source to computer program code. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an improved approach to automatic code generation that uses a cognitive AI layer to translate an input source to computer program code as suggested by GRIGORE (See at least GRIGORE ¶ [0002-0003]).
Herman as modified by Grigore does not appear to explicitly disclose
(deploying, by the application modernization engine, the application into the existing enterprise computer system,) wherein the deploying of the application comprises versioned deployment comprising zero downtime and versioning synchronization comprising initializing a new repository in an existing directory or by cloning an existing repository for saving and accessing versions of the application, and
wherein the versioned deployment comprises a stepwise implementation of the application to achieve the zero downtime.
However, in analogous art, Modi discloses
(deploying, by the application modernization engine, the application into the existing enterprise computer system,) wherein the deploying of the application comprises versioned deployment comprising zero downtime (e.g. para [0091], “… If the new version is compatible, the upgrade to the new version of the application is completed while maintaining application availability …”).
wherein the versioned deployment comprises a stepwise implementation of the application to achieve the zero downtime (e.g. Fig. 7, steps 708, 710, para [0091-0093] wherein multiple phase upgrade reads on stepwise implementation of the application).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Modi because it provides techniques for more efficient upgrade processes with less application down time and improved user efficiency. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for more efficient upgrade processes with less application down time and improved user efficiency as suggested by Modi (See at least Modi ¶ [0018]).
Herman as modified by Grigore and Modi does not appear to explicitly disclose
(…) and versioning synchronization comprising initializing a new repository in an existing directory or by cloning an existing repository for saving and accessing versions of the application,
However, this is taught in analogous art, KANEKO (e.g. para [0047], “… the user table 2420 can be synchronized with user account information in version control system server …” para [0060], “… different type of the repositories can include master and clones. …, a user requests to access a program and a new and/or modified version of the program is stored as a clone in a different repository located in a different country from the original or master version of the program.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of KANEKO because it provides techniques for approval to share and/or access the program with the user 1010-B to be carried out efficiently with minimal information provided by the requestor to allow managers (e.g., developer 1010-A) in the workflow to quickly and confidently complete the appropriate checklists for the request. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for approval to share and/or access the program with the user 1010-B to be carried out efficiently with minimal information provided by the requestor as suggested by KANEKO (See at least KANEKO ¶ [0004, 0043]).
With respect to claim 11 (Currently Amended), it is directed to A computer program product comprising program code of application modernization engine to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 11. Note that, HERMAN teaches A computer program product comprising program code (e.g. Fig. 10).
With respect to claim 23 (New), HERMAN discloses wherein the no-code operations create application software through a graphical user interface and configurations (e.g. Fig. 2, and Fig. 3. Para [0043], “No-code approach 310: On the other end of the spectrum is a no-code approach. This uses a CLI 312 (as one example) to harvest backend system 314 information and develop the metadata specification files in the repository 316 to be added to modules. This offers much-desired simplicity because it removes a significant amount of configurability relative to the full code approach. …”).
With respect to claim 24 (New), HERMAN discloses wherein augmenting the application with the second functionality comprises integrating at least one or more plugins or integration connectors to add capabilities to the enterprise computer. (e.g. Para [0020], “As noted, IDEs exist that allow IT developers to generate and deploy APIs interfacing with backend functionality. Plugins and tooling can enable parsing and understanding metadata collected from backend systems about functionality of those backend systems and automatically generate projects,. …”).
With respect to claim 25 (New), HERMAN discloses wherein augmenting the application with the second functionality comprises integrating one or more plugins to add capabilities to the enterprise computer. (e.g. Para [0020], “As noted, IDEs exist that allow IT developers to generate and deploy APIs interfacing with backend functionality. Plugins and tooling can enable parsing and understanding metadata collected from backend systems about functionality of those backend systems and automatically generate projects,. …”).
With respect to claim 26 (New), HERMAN discloses wherein the capabilities comprise one or more notifications, documents, optical character recognition, task management, reporting, and other backend systems. (e.g. Figs. 9A-9C, Para [0149], “FIGS. 9A-9C depicts example processes to facilitate backend integration,. …” wherein backend integration reads on the capabilities comprise other backend systems).
Claims 2, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN in view of GRIGORE, Modi and KANEKO as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, in further view of MILLS (US 20200125336 A1 -- hereinafter MILLS).
With respect to claim 2 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, Modi and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the application modernization engine analyzes operations of a business process to automatically identify the first functionality. However, this is taught in analogous art, Mills (e.g. para [0104], “… In certain embodiments, the application builder GUI module of the application builder tool is configured to receive information indicating whether a user has made a change to the view of the application. Various different actions performed by the user may cause a change or modification to the view of the application. For example, the view of the application may be changed when the user adds a new component to the user interface for the application. …” wherein the view of the application reads on the first functionality).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of MILLS because it provides techniques for enhancing component based development systems by making components self-aware with respect to the applications that they may be consumed in or other peer components within the applications. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for enhancing component based development systems by making components self-aware with respect to the applications that they may be consumed in or other peer components within the applications as suggested by MILLS (See at least Shetty ¶ [0008]).
With respect to claim 9 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, HERMAN discloses the improved application development through the simulated intelligence and the expanded tooling (e.g. para [0003], “Shortcomings of the prior art are overcome and additional advantages are provided through the provision of a computer-implemented method. …” this paragraph indicates that the disclosed method is an improved application development method.) and providing faster deployment of the application (e.g. para [0043], “No-code approach 310: On the other end of the spectrum is a no-code approach. This uses a CLI 312 (as one example) to harvest backend system 314 information and develop the metadata specification files in the repository 316 to be added to modules. This offers much-desired simplicity because it removes a significant amount of configurability relative to the full code approach. …” this paragraph indicates a faster development and therefore faster deployment of the application). But does not appear to explicitly disclose with improved design speed for the second functionality, However, this is taught in analogous art, MILLS (e.g. para [0056], “… This ultimately requires the IDE or application builder to be very knowledgeable about the component in order to allow for assistance with the wiring or configuration of the component (i.e., a programmer of the IDE needs to code a wizard or walk-through tutorial for each complex component, which can be time consuming and costly, especially for component that may be dynamic or constantly being updated).” Para [0057], “In various embodiments, to allow this level of wiring or configuration of a component without having the IDE or application builder to be very knowledgeable about the component, the components are developed with metadata or a map of how to self-wire or self-configure for use with the UI of the application. …” these paragraphs indicates that MILLS provides improved design speed for the second functionality).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of MILLS because it provides techniques for enhancing component based development systems by making components self-aware with respect to the applications that they may be consumed in or other peer components within the applications. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for enhancing component based development systems by making components self-aware with respect to the applications that they may be consumed in or other peer components within the applications as suggested by MILLS (See at least Shetty ¶ [0008]).
With respect to claim 12 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN in view of GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, in further view of Yaseen et al. (US 20120185821 A1 -- hereinafter Yaseen).
With respect to claim 3 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the application modernization engine orchestrates custom components with validators and custom business rules when identifying the first functionality. However, this is taught in analogous art, Yaseen (e.g. para [0230], “… Importantly, it facilitates the encapsulation of domain business logic, which, in turn, helps to ensure that business policies and rules are validated in a consistent fashion. Entity objects support numerous declarative business logic features to enforce the validity of data. Such constructs not only provide for declarative validation, but also provide for additional custom application logic and business rules, thereby facilitating encapsulation of the requisite domain business logic into each entity object.” wherein the entity object reads on the first functionality).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Yaseen because it provides techniques that are simple and sufficiently easy for extending and modifying software functionality. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques that are simple and sufficiently easy for extending and modifying software functionality as suggested by Yaseen (See at least Yaseen ¶ [0009-0010]).
With respect to claim 13 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN in view of GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, in further view of Teibel et al. (US 20150127717 A1 -- hereinafter Teibel).
With respect to claim 4 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the application modernization engine orchestrates custom components by determining when to render the custom components, what data to provide to custom code of the custom components, and what actions the custom components perform in return. However, this is taught in analogous art, Teibel (e.g. para [0021], “… a web application within browser 202 can also submit a scheduled JavaScript task for execution on a specific date and time to application 204. Application 204 includes a Schedule Script function 312 for scheduling JavaScript tasks. Through the REST API 206, the web application provides task data (e.g. when to run, what Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to call to pull down the Javascript, simple recurrence rules, and custom data to be used at execution time) and application 204
manages the scheduled tasks, calling the URL provided at the scheduled date and time.” wherein the Javascript reads on the custom component, the tasks read on the actions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Teibel because it provides techniques for deploying applications and application extensions with minimal user interaction. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for deploying applications and application extensions with minimal user interaction as suggested by Teibel (See at least Teibel ¶ [0012]).
With respect to claim 14 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN in view of GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, in further view of Andrade et al. (US 20110185346 A1 -- hereinafter Andrade).
With respect to claim 5 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, Herman also discloses the collection of internal resources, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the collection of resources comprises application components, (internal resources), and external resources. However, this is taught in analogous art, Andrade (e.g. para [0029], “… An application, which is a top-level construct that employs other assets, such as components, libraries, data files, and/or external computational resources, with the aim of processing data and producing results. ...”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Andrade because it provides a capability for automating the build and retarget processes which saves time and reduces errors. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a capability for automating the build and retarget processes which saves time and reduces errors as suggested by Andrade (See at least Andrade ¶ [0006-0007]).
With respect to claim 15 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN in view of GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, in further view of LI et al. (US 20230205494 A1 -- hereinafter LI).
With respect to claim 6 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the application modernization engine edits the collection of resources. However, this is taught in analogous art, LI (e.g. para [0037], “… As an example, a developer can acquire a first resource file of a special effect engine through the terminal device 101, and a user can edit the first resource file through an editor in the terminal device 101. ...”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of LI because it provides techniques to improve the efficiency for loading resource files. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques to improve the efficiency for loading resource files as suggested by LI (See at least LI ¶ [0035]).
With respect to claim 16 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN in view of GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, in further view of Talmor et al. (US 20250110728 A1 -- hereinafter Talmor).
With respect to claim 7 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the application modernization engine executes test cases using one or more continuous integration and continuous deployment pipelines throughout a lifecycle of the improved application development. However, this is taught in analogous art, Talmor (e.g. para [0021], “… Continuous integration build tool 121A-D may start a build, e.g., by executing compiler 115A-D, unit tester 117A-D, and integration tester 119A-D in accordance with a build configuration script that contains instructions for compiling the source code and testing the resulting executable code 135. ...”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Talmor because it provides techniques to execute pipelines in a manner that improves
performance, reduces resources, improves efficiency, improves speed, or a combination thereof. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques to execute pipelines in a manner that improves
performance, reduces resources, improves efficiency, improves speed, or a combination thereof as suggested by Talmor (See at least Talmor ¶ [0014]).
With respect to claim 17 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERMAN in view of GRIGORE, Modi, and KANEKO as applied to claim 1, in further view of CARDOZO et al. (US 20230061613 A1 -- hereinafter CARDOZO).
With respect to claim 10 (Original), HERMAN as modified by GRIGORE, MODI and KANEKO discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the application modernization engine implements the method during a runtime of the existing enterprise computer system. However, this is taught in analogous art, CARDOZO (e.g. Figs. 1A-1C. Fig. 4. And corresponding text, Para [0014-0025, 0038-0039], CARDOZO’s teaching renders the claim feature obvious).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of CARDOZO because it provides a capability to test an updated version of a software application using live inputs and/or data while also minimizing any end user impact or downtime in cases where one or more issues are discovered during testing. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a capability to test an updated version of a software application using live inputs and/or data while also minimizing any end user impact or downtime in cases where one or more issues are discovered during testing as suggested by CARDOZO (See at least CARDOZO ¶ [0012-0013]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 art rejections have been fully considered and are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. E.g. Berg, et al. teaches method and apparatus to facilitate development of a customer-specific business process model. Goddard et al. teaches system for automatically generating electronic artifacts using extended functionality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZENGPU WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2197