DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action in response to communications filed April 30, 2025. Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3, 10, and 16 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 3, 10, and 16 recite “an element causing a failure” in the limitation to “determine an element causing a failure”. Claims 3, 10, and 16 further recite “a fix associated with the element” in the limitation to “obtain information” and “a fix to the failure” in the limitation to “provide the information”. In view of the recited association between the element and the failure, Examiner submits that the limitations above render the scope of the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for each recited “fix” limitation to reference the other limitations to “fix” or intends to introduce distinct “fix” limitations.
Further, claims 3, 10, and 16 recite “the fix” as the final limitation of the claim. However, as noted above, the claims previously recite “a fix associated with the element” and “a fix to the failure”. As a result, the recitation of “the fix” renders the scope of the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends to reference the previous recitations or intends to introduce a new “fix” limitation.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “upon determining the element causing the failure, obtain information about a prior failure and a prior fix associated with the element”; “provide the information about the prior failure and the prior fix associated with the element to an artificial intelligence and a request to provide a fix to the failure”; and “execute at least a portion of the child level test associated with the fix to the failure.”
In view of the above, claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “obtain a workflow associated with a software platform, wherein the workflow includes multiple components comprising a database, a trigger, and a function, wherein the trigger describes an event upon which occurrence the function is performed”; “obtain a hierarchy of the multiple components associated with the workflow, wherein a root level of the hierarchy includes the workflow, wherein a child level of the hierarchy includes the database, the trigger, and/or the function”; “create a test associated with the workflow, wherein executing the test verifies whether the workflow is valid, wherein the test includes a child level test and a root level test, wherein the child level test includes a first test to test the database, a second test to test the trigger, and/or a third test to test the function, and wherein the root level test includes a fourth test to test the workflow”; “execute the test starting with the child level test”; “determine whether the child level test indicates that the child level of the hierarchy is valid”; “upon determining that the child level test indicates that the child level of the hierarchy is valid, execute the root level test”; “determine whether the root level test indicates that the root level of the hierarchy is valid”; and upon determining that the root level test of the hierarchy is valid, indicate that the workflow is valid.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for validating a workflow. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 14 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 14 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 further describe the process for validating a workflow and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer-readable storage medium and at least one data processor of a system. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 8 and 14 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 14 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an artificial intelligence (Claims 3, 10, and 16). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 3, 10, and 16 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, and 17–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, and 17–20 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, and 17–20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer-readable storage medium and at least one data processor of a system. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 8 and 14 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 14 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an artificial intelligence (Claims 3, 10, and 16). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 3, 10, and 16 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, and 17–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, and 17–20 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–13, 15, and 17–20 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 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 1–3, 5–6, 8–10, 12–16, and 18–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNGUIA TAPIA et al. (U.S. 2024/0362465) in view of Ivaniuk et al. (U.S. 2020/0104160).
Claims 1, 8, and 14: Munguia Tapia discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 105–106) to:
obtain a workflow associated with a software platform (See paragraphs 89–90, wherein the system generates a workflow), wherein the workflow includes multiple components comprising a database, a trigger, and a function (See paragraphs 89–90, in view of FIG. 3C and paragraphs 133–135, wherein the workflow includes an order of execution based on a data flow for performing functional tasks, and wherein an exemplary workflow includes calls to a database for data retrieval; see also FIG. 5A–C), wherein the trigger describes an event upon which occurrence the function is performed (See paragraphs 89–90, in view of FIG. 3B and paragraphs 130–132, wherein the workflow includes an order of execution based on a data flow for performing functional tasks, and wherein an exemplary email advisor workflow utilizes triggers to identify and execute the appropriate tasks);
obtain a hierarchy of the multiple components associated with the workflow, wherein a root level of the hierarchy includes the workflow, wherein a child level of the hierarchy includes the database, the trigger, and/or the function (See paragraphs 89–90, in view of FIG. 3B–3C, wherein workflow service nodes are arranged in a hierarchy);
create a test associated with the workflow, wherein executing the test verifies whether the workflow is valid, wherein the test includes a first test to test the database, a second test to test the trigger, and/or a third test to test the function, and wherein the test includes a fourth test to test the workflow (See paragraph 91, in view of FIG. 3B–3C, wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”, and paragraph 100, wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 92–93);
execute the test (See paragraph 91, in view of FIG. 3B–3C,wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”; see also paragraphs 92–93 and 100);
determine whether the test indicates that the child level of the hierarchy is valid (See paragraphs 91 and 100, in view of FIG. 3B–3C,wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”, and wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 92–93);
determine whether the test indicates that the root level of the hierarchy is valid (See paragraphs 91 and 100, in view of FIG. 3B–3C,wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”, and wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 92–93); and
upon determining that the root level test of the hierarchy is valid, indicate that the workflow is valid (See paragraphs 91 and 100, in view of FIG. 3B–3C,wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”, and wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 92–93). Munguia Tapia does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ivaniuk discloses functionality to create a test associated with the workflow, wherein executing the test verifies whether the workflow is valid, wherein the test includes a child level test and a root level test, wherein the child level test includes a first test, a second test, and/or a third test, and wherein the root level test includes a fourth test to test the workflow (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node);
execute the test starting with the child level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node);
determine whether the child level test indicates that the child level of the hierarchy is valid (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node);
upon determining that the child level test indicates that the child level of the hierarchy is valid, execute the root level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node);
determine whether the root level test indicates that the root level of the hierarchy is valid (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node); and
upon determining that the root level test of the hierarchy is valid, indicate that the workflow is valid (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node).
Munguia Tapia discloses a system directed to developing and validating workflows using an AI system. Ivaniuk discloses a system directed to evaluating conditions for A/B testing. Each reference discloses a system directed to executing validation operations. The technique of implementing validation testing from a child level to a root level is applicable to the system of Munguia Tapia as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to executing validation operations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ivaniuk to the teachings of Munguia Tapia would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate validation operations into similar systems. Further, applying validation testing from a child level to a root level to Munguia Tapia would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claims 8 and 14, Examiner notes that the Specification indicates that the claimed workflow is a container. More particularly, paragraph 107 indicates discloses a “container, such as the workflow 460”, and paragraph 108 discloses “container 460”, which references workflow 460 of FIG. 4. Accordingly, claims 8 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Additionally, Examiner notes that Munguia Tapia discloses instantiating workflows as containers (See paragraph 100), which are validated according to the processes cited above.
Claims 2, 9, and 15: Munguia Tapia discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, comprising instructions to: obtain the hierarchy of the multiple components associated with the workflow, wherein the root level of the hierarchy includes the workflow, wherein the child level of the hierarchy includes the database, the trigger, and/or the function (See paragraphs 89–90, in view of FIG. 3B–3C, wherein workflow service nodes are arranged in a hierarchy), wherein a second child level of the hierarchy includes a subfunction associated with the function (See paragraphs 89–90, in view of paragraph 146, wherein functional tasks at each service node are associated with sub-step processing nodes);
create the test associated with the workflow, wherein a test includes a fifth test to the subfunction (See paragraph 91, in view of FIG. 3B–3C, wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”, and paragraph 100, wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 92–93);
execute the test (See paragraph 91, in view of FIG. 3B–3C,wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”; see also paragraphs 92–93 and 100);
determine whether the test indicates that the second child level of the hierarchy is valid (See paragraphs 91 and 100, in view of FIG. 3B–3C,wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”, and wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 92–93). Munguia Tapia does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ivaniuk discloses functionality to create the test associated with the workflow, wherein a second child level test includes a fifth test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node);
execute the test starting with the second child level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node);
determine whether the second child level test indicates that the second child level of the hierarchy is valid (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node); and
upon determining that the second child level test indicates that the second child level of the hierarchy is valid, execute the child level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3, 10, and 16: Munguia Tapia discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, comprising instructions to:
upon determining that the test indicates that the child level of the hierarchy is not valid, determine an element causing a failure by determining whether the failure is associated with the test, the software platform, the database, the trigger, and/or the function (See paragraph 91, in view of FIG. 3B–3C, wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”, and paragraph 100, wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 92–93);
upon determining the element causing the failure, obtain information about a prior failure and a fix associated with the element (See paragraphs 100 and 127, in view of paragraphs 96–98, wherein automated resolution actions are implemented using an issue category and knowledge base records);
provide the information about the prior failure and the fix associated with the element to an artificial intelligence and a request to provide a fix to the failure (See paragraph 100, in view of paragraphs 96–98, wherein the automated resolution system is an AI system, and wherein actions are implemented by the AI resolution system using an issue category and knowledge base records; see also paragraph 93, wherein the AI rules trigger automation actions, and paragraph 247, wherein AI automation is further disclosed);
obtain from the artificial intelligence the fix to the failure (See paragraph 100, in view of paragraphs 96–98, wherein the automated resolution system is an AI system, and wherein actions are implemented by the AI resolution system using an issue category and knowledge base records);
implement the fix associated with the element causing the failure (See paragraph 100, in view of paragraphs 96–98, wherein the automated resolution system is an AI system, and wherein actions are implemented by the AI resolution system using an issue category and knowledge base records); and
execute at least a portion of the test associated with the fix (See paragraph 91, wherein the workflow is updated based on validation results, and wherein the updated workflow is tuned using the validation metrics; see also paragraph 100). Munguia Tapia does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ivaniuk discloses a child level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5, 12, and 18: Munguia Tapia discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, comprising instructions to: create the test, wherein the test includes the second test to test the trigger, wherein the second test to test the trigger includes a trigger type and a trigger argument, wherein the second test to test the trigger determines whether the trigger type and the trigger argument are valid (See paragraphs 91 and 100, in view of FIG. 3B and paragraphs 130–132, wherein the workflow includes an order of execution based on a data flow for performing functional tasks, wherein an exemplary email advisor workflow utilizes conditional triggers to identify and execute the tasks according to task type, and wherein failure messages are generated with respect to “each of the identified plurality of AI and Generative AI service nodes”, thereby determining validity at each level of the workflow hierarchy; see also paragraphs 89–90). Munguia Tapia does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ivaniuk discloses the child level test and the root level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 6, 13, and 19: Munguia Tapia discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, comprising instructions to: create the test, wherein the test includes the third test to test the function, wherein the third test to test the function includes an input type, an output type, and/or a mutation effect (See paragraph 91, in view of paragraphs 89–90, wherein validation testing is performed with respect to each node, and wherein the nodes perform functional tasks and are configured according to input and output types; see also paragraph 100). Munguia Tapia does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ivaniuk discloses the child level test and the root level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNGUIA TAPIA et al. (U.S. 2024/0362465) in view of Ivaniuk et al. (U.S. 2020/0104160), and in further view of Marquez Ayala et al. (U.S. 2026/0023615).
Claims 4, 11, and 17: As disclosed above, Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk disclose the elements of claim 1.
Munguia Tapia discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, comprising instructions to: create the test, wherein the test includes the first test to test the database (See paragraph 91, in view of FIG. 3B–3C, wherein the workflow is validated based on “execution times, a processing node description, code functions, and the analyzed workflow descriptors”; see also paragraphs 92–93 and 100); and
wherein the first test to test the database determines whether the property type is valid (See paragraph 91, in view of paragraphs 89 and 113, wherein validation of each node of the workflow includes validating node configuration, including data types and input types). Munguia Tapia does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ivaniuk discloses the child level test and the root level test (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 43–44, wherein an evaluation tree test is created and executed to perform validation by validating each node of the tree, and wherein validation begins at a leaf node and ends at the root node).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Marquez Ayala discloses wherein the first test to test the database includes a schema including a property type, wherein the first test to test the database determines whether the schema is valid (See FIG. 7 and paragraphs 162–164, in view of paragraph 25, wherein steps of the workflow operate on a record of a data object of a database, wherein the database includes a schema and property types associated with the record, and wherein operations of the workflow are validated according to the schema).
As disclosed above, Munguia Tapia discloses a system directed to developing and validating workflows using an AI system, and Ivaniuk discloses a system directed to evaluating conditions for A/B testing. Marquez Ayala discloses a system directed to generating workflows and validating operations during runtime. Each reference discloses a system directed to executing validation operations. The technique of testing database operations according to schema and property type is applicable to the systems of Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to executing validation operations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Marquez Ayala would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Marquez Ayala to the teachings of Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate validation operations into similar systems. Further, applying database testing operations according to schema and property type to Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNGUIA TAPIA et al. (U.S. 2024/0362465) in view of Ivaniuk et al. (U.S. 2020/0104160), and in further view of Linder et al. (U.S. 2026/0140499).
Claims 7 and 20: As disclosed above, Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk disclose the elements of claim 1.
Munguia Tapia discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, comprising instructions to: determine that the test indicates a use of data from a system external to the software platform (See paragraphs 99–100, wherein the workflow is validated upon deploying the workflow to an external system); and
create the test associated with the workflow (See paragraphs 99–100, wherein the workflow is validated upon deploying the workflow to an external system). Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Linder discloses functionality to create the test by simulating the data from the system external to the software platform, without placing a call to the system external to the software platform (See paragraph 191, wherein external system touchpoints are simulated or modeled for testing purposes).
As disclosed above, Munguia Tapia discloses a system directed to developing and validating workflows using an AI system, and Ivaniuk discloses a system directed to evaluating conditions for A/B testing. Linder discloses a system directed to creating test plans using generative AI. Each reference discloses a system directed to executing validation operations. The technique of simulating data is applicable to the systems of Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to executing validation operations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Linder would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Linder to the teachings of Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate validation operations into similar systems. Further, applying simulated data to Munguia Tapia and Ivaniuk would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aharoni et al. (U.S. 2012/0227047) discloses a system directed to validating and executing a workflow using a directed graph construction of the workflow; and
Kim et al. (Kim, Jihie, Yolanda Gil, and Marc Spraragen. "Principles for interactive acquisition and validation of workflows." Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 22.2 (2010): 103-134.) discloses a system for designing and validation workflows using artificial intelligence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
