DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 12/19/2025.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1, 11, and 21. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRAJAPAT et al (US 2024/0053966; hereinafter PRAJAPAT) in view of COLGROVE et al (US 2025/0156233; hereinafter COLGROVE).
Regarding claim 1, PRAJAPAT discloses a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
accessing interface rules for a remote resource (paragraph [0026]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the GUI 122 is configured to present graphical item(s) for defining functions and parameters of the interface connector 124. User input is received through the GUI 122 that define the functions and parameters for the interface connector 124);
generating a connector interface based, at least in part, upon the interface rules (paragraphs [0026], [0063]; PRAJAPAT discloses the workflow management service 118 then generates the interface connector 124 generates the interface connector 124 by generating and storing an interface connector configuration that includes the configuration of the functions and the parameters defined by the user input); and
accessing the remote resource via the connector interface (paragraphs [0070 - 0072]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the generating the interface connector to perform the function that uses the parameter in accordance with the user input includes: implementing the interface connector as an HTTP connector on the server so that the HTTP connector listens for request from the server to the microservice or the API).
PRAJAPAT discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose a generative AI to obtain and digest the interface rules, and using generative AI to generate the connector interface.
COLGROVE, in an analogous art discloses the idea of using a generative AI to obtain and digest the interface rules, and using generative AI to generate the connector interface (paragraphs [0265 - 0266], [0307]; COLGROVE discloses that the storage systems described above may be managed or accessed via a variety of interfaces. Such interfaces may include, for example, command line interfaces, graphical user interfaces, various management consoles, and so on. Such interfaces may be paired with (or include) AI or generative AI capabilities including, for example, generative AI assistants, generative AI tools to create policies (e.g., security policies, data protection policies, replication policies) ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of PRAJAPAT by using a generative AI to obtain and digest the interface rules, and using generative AI to generate the connector interface as evidenced by COLGROVE for the purpose of helping a storage administrator understand best practices and current threats to secure their storage systems.
Regarding claim 2, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the connector interface is a bidirectional connector interface (paragraph [0072]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the implementing the interface connector as an HTTP connector on the server so that the HTTP connector listens for request from the server to the microservice or the API. In some embodiments, the at least one processor is further configured to: implement a client on the server; generate a first request from the client that is requesting data from the microservice or the API; trigger the HTTP connector to send a second request for the requested data to an integration service that communicates with the microservice or the API; receive the requested data from the integration service).
Regarding claim 3, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the bidirectional connector interface enables bidirectional communication between the remote resource and a local resource (paragraph [0072]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to: implement a client on the server; generate a first request from the client that is requesting data from the microservice or the API; trigger the HTTP connector to send a second request for the requested data to an integration service that communicates with the microservice or the API).
Regarding claim 4, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein generating a connector interface based, at least in part, upon the interface rules includes:
generating a connector interface based, at least in part, upon the interface rules and a best practice guidelines (paragraph [0072]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the GUI is configured to having one or more graphical items for defining a function and a parameter of an interface connector; receive user input from the GUI that defines a function and a parameter for an interface connector; generate the interface connector to perform the function that uses the parameter in accordance with the user input).
Regarding claim 5, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein generating a connector interface based, at least in part, upon the interface rules includes:
generating a connector interface based, at least in part, upon the interface rules and a previously-generated connector interfaces (paragraph [0026]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the ace connector 124 by generating and storing an interface connector configuration that includes the configuration of the functions and the parameters defined by the user input. The workflow management service 118 then implements an instance of the interface connector 124 by obtaining the particular interface connector configuration 132 during the implementation of the workflow 130).
Regarding claim 6, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising:
validating the connector interface (paragraph [0055]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the interface connector 124 then validates and authenticates the response at block 618. The interface connector 124 validates and authenticates the response in accordance with the headers of the interface connector 124 and/or in accordance with an algorithm written for validation and authentication, at block 618).
Regarding claim 7, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6 wherein validating the connector interface includes:
establishing communication between a local resource and the remote resource via the connector interface (paragraphs [0021], [0055]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the interface connector 124 generates a response with the requested data that is formatted in accordance with input requirements for the client 120 and sends the response with the requested data to the client 120, at block 620).
Regarding claim 8, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7 wherein validating the connector interface further includes:
effectuating a communication test between the local resource and the remote resource to define a test result (paragraphs [0018], [0024]; PRAJAPAT discloses that the response is reutilized by the software application 110A to decide next possible path in a workflow. In some embodiments, the software application 110A is in a waiting state in order to decide the next procedure to be implemented once a result is received from the software application 110B).
Regarding claim 9, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8 wherein validating the connector interface further includes:
comparing the test result to an anticipated result to define an accuracy score (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, PRAJAPAT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein validating the connector interface further includes:
revising the connector interface based, at least in part, upon the test result if the accuracy score is below a defined accuracy threshold (paragraphs [0047 - 0048]).
Claims 11 – 30 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 10 in computer program product and system form rather than method form with minor modifications in the claimed language. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 10 apply in claims 11 – 30. Therefore, claims 11 – 30 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights