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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 08/18/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 17, 18, 32, and 64 are currently amended. Claims 19-31, and 33-63 have been cancelled and are no longer pending. Therefore, claims 1-18, 32, and 64 remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) because the present application is a 371 of PCT/IB2020/060079 which has the filing date of 10/28/2020.
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 1-18, 32, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-18: A method for presenting an enterprise resource planning (ERP) output,
Claim 32: A method for presenting business data, the method comprises:
Claim 64: A computerized system for presenting business data, the computerized system is configured to execute the steps of:
Claims 1-18, and 32 recite a method, which falls under the potentially eligible subject matter category of a process. Claim 64 recites a computerized system which falls under machine or manufacture; therefore all the claims recite at least one potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 32, and 64 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: A method for presenting an enterprise resource planning (ERP) output,
Claim 32: A method for presenting business data, the method comprises:
Claim 64: A computerized system for presenting business data, the computerized system is configured to execute the steps of:
Claim 1 Body:
generating a first data model of a first format, wherein the generating comprises using first business logic defined by a first ERP software to retrieve business data;
modifying the first data model to provide a modified data model, in runtime during transaction execution, by using a second ERP software that differs from the first ERP software, wherein the modifying comprises applying at least one function on the first data model, the at least one function being selected out of multiple functions of the second ERP software, wherein a selecting is executed by providing application programming interface (API) methods and application’s built-in functions; wherein the functions comprise (a) an addition of data attributes of different kinds, the different kinds comprise a formula, a text, and a database lookup, (b) manipulation of data records, (c) a grouping functionality, (d) conditional formatting functionality; and
presenting the ERP output, the ERP output comprises at least a part of the modified data model.
Claim 32 Body (also representative of claim 64):
generating a first data model of a first format, wherein the generating comprises using first business logic defined by a first Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) software to retrieve business data;
modifying the first data model to provide a modified data model, by using a second ABAP software that differs from the first ABAP software, wherein the modifying comprises applying at least one function on the first data model, the at least one function being selected out of multiple functions of the second ABAP software, wherein a selecting is executed by providing application programming interface (API) methods and application's built-in functions; wherein the functions comprise (a) an addition of data attributes of different kinds, the different kinds comprise a formula, a text and a database lookup, (b) manipulation of data records, (c) a grouping functionality, (d) conditional formatting functionality; and
presenting the ABAP output, the ABAP output comprises at least a part of the modified data model.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 32, and 64 recite an abstract idea under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the claims recite commercial or legal interactions, as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. In this case, the claim limitations in bold recite an abstract idea with the steps/functions of “generating a business model, applying a selected function to the model to modify it, and presenting the output of the modification.” This is an example of reciting a commercial interaction, as supported by the specification [001], “An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, such as an example SAP system available from the software corporation SAP® SE, incorporates various databases, servers, and computer- based systems to manage an organization or company’s enterprise-level data management requirements. SAP® SE covers many internal and external aspects in areas such as assets, financing, sales, logistics, management of human resources among others.” Since these enterprise resource planning methods are used to the modify and display asset, financing, sales, logistics, management and HR information, it falls within multiple criteria within the subcategory. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” particularly commercial or legal interactions.
Even when considering the amended limitations of adding the functions of “addition of data attributes of different kinds, comprising a formula, text, and a database lookup,” “manipulation of data records,” “grouping functionality,” and “conditional formatting functionality” these are recited with such generality that they are no more than a set of rules or instructions to perform basic data processing steps. They are not recited with sufficient specificity to consider them part of the technology or an abstract idea because they merely claim the intended outcome of the functions without claiming the specific or necessary algorithms or steps to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, even in view of the claim amendments, the claims are still reciting an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claims include the following additional elements:
(a)- first ERP software (in claim 1 )
(b)- second ERP software that differs from the first ERP software (in claim 1)
(c)- first Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) software (in claims 32 and 64)
(d)- second ABAP software that differs from the first ABAP software (in claims 32 and 64)
(e)- ABAP Output(in claims 32 and 64)
(f)- A computerized system (in claim 64)
(g)- application programming interface (API) (claims 1, 32, and 64)
(h) – application’s built-in functions; (claims 1, 32, and 64)
The additional elements (a)-(f) are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception using generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case the abstract idea of “generating a business model, applying a selected function to the model to modify it, and presenting the output of the modification” is being limited to software functions performed on generic computing components. These generic computing components include a computer, or any hardware running the software as described in the specification at least in paragraphs [0024] and [0026]. The hardware described are simply, “[0023] processing circuitry... implemented as a central processing unit (CPU), and/or one or more other integrated circuits such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), full-custom integrated circuits, etc., or a combination of such integrated circuits” or “[0026] “Software”, “application” or, “system” here may include a computer program or algorithm, which when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a method, process, or function.” Therefore, these computing devices are generic in nature since the described software functions can be performed on generic computing devices.
Furthermore, the additional elements are also a general link to a technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(g). In this case, the abstract idea is being generally linked to the field of Enterprise resource planning software, Advanced Business Application Programming software, or Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) which are merely existing computing infrastructures generally linked to the abstract idea. These additional elements are being linked to the abstract idea in a general manner because the claims recite performing the abstract idea, “using” the additional elements, or performing functions of “ERP” or “ABAP,” or presenting the outputs of the “ERP” or “ABAP” software. These do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or specifically instruct how the additional elements are used to perform the abstract idea; therefore they do provide an integration into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional element of the “application’s built in functions” are merely a general link to the technological field of application programming and also an “apply it” level element under MPEP 2106.05(f) because it merely indicates that the functions are built into the application, which does not provide an improvement to the field, or anything more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Whether considering the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The same additional elements set forth in the Prong 2 rejection are also analyzed for whether they recite an inventive concept, the additional elements being repeated as follows:
(a)- first ERP software (in claim 1 )
(b)- second ERP software that differs from the first ERP software (in claim 1)
(c)- first Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) software (in claims 32 and 64)
(d)- second ABAP software that differs from the first ABAP software (in claims 32 and 64)
(e)- ABAP Output(in claims 32 and 64)
(f)- A computerized system (in claim 64)
(g)- application programming interface (API) (claims 1, 32, and 64)
(h) – application’s built-in functions; (claims 1, 32, and 64)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using additional elements (a-g)) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept(See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are also generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.(See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, no improvements to the processing resources have been purported, because neither the claims nor the specification provide an improved computing component performing the functions. In addition, the claims do not purport an improvement to the fields of ERP software, ABAP software, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) or to the field of interface technology, since they are simply being generally linked to an abstract idea. Please review MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information regarding improvements to computing devices(Section I), or technological fields(Section II). Therefore in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a), the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it provides significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-18 are also given the full two-part analysis, individually and in combination with the claims they depend on, in the following analysis:
Claim 2 adds further limitations to the abstract idea, including the steps of adding a column to the first data model by using an API to activate the addition of column functionality, receiving a selection of a type of column, receiving operands and other column characters for formula-kind columns, and save the column functionality in an application variant. This is more of the same abstract idea of “generating a business model, applying a selected function to the model to modify it, and presenting the output of the modification” because it merely provides instructions for a user to perform a manipulation of data. Regarding step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2B, the additional elements of application programming interface (API), and application variant still amount to “apply it” level elements in MPEP 2106.05(f) and a general link to a technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 3 adds a further limitation that the first data model is prevented from being displayed. This is more of the same abstract idea of “generating a business model, applying a selected function to the model to modify it, and presenting the output of the modification” because it merely dictates which data is to outputted. Regarding step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no further additional elements to consider, and the additional steps in combination with the original additional elements of the claims depended upon still amount to a mere link to generic computing devices as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f) and a general link to a technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 4 further limits the additional element “first ERP software” to be a “SAP compliant software.” The abstract idea analysis remains unaffected since it is only a further limitation of an additional element, therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. The new additional element “SAP compliant software” is also an example of generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use as outlined MPEP 2106.05(g) , with the technological environment being “SAP compliant software.” Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 5-7 add further limitations to the “generating of the first data model” limitation of claim 1. Claim 5 limits the generating to be done on an ABAP, claim 6 limits it to programs stored on the same database as the business data, and claim 7 requires the ABAP program and multiple functions of a second ERP software stored on a database. This is more of the same abstract idea of “generating a business model, applying a selected function to the model to modify it, and presenting the output of the modification” because these additional steps describe a mere recitation of the data source, or where the functions are stored. Furthermore, limiting the generating to be done on an ABAP or a second ERP software is a general link of the abstract idea to the technological environment or field of use of ABAP or ERP software as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(g). The rejection of the additional elements of ABAP and ERP are described in more detail in the Step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2b analysis of independent claim 32, and also apply to this dependent claim for the same reasons set forth in that rejection. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 8-12 merely further limits the abstract idea by limiting the generating of the model by using a dark call (claim 8), including descriptive labels(claim 9), manipulation such as calculations(claims 10 & 11). This is more of the same abstract idea of “generating a business model, applying a selected function to the model to modify it, and presenting the output of the modification,” because adding fields and mathematical manipulations are simply data processing steps recited at a high level of generality in order to perform the abstract idea. Regarding step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no further additional elements to consider, and the additional steps in combination with the original additional elements of the claims depended upon still amount to a mere link to generic computing devices as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f) and a general link to a technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 13-18 describe additional limitations to the step of modifying, mainly consisting of generic data manipulation functions such as adding text labels/groupings (in claims 14), aggregating data (in claim 13), adding identifying keys (in claim 15), adding user inputs (in claim 16), and conditionally manipulating the styling and color(in claims 17 & 18). Since each of these generic data functions are simply steps in order to the fulfill the abstract idea of “generating a business model, applying a selected function to the model to modify it, and presenting the output of the modification,” they are simply more of the same abstract idea because they are mere embellishment features. Even when considering the amended features in claims 17 and 18, they are no more than reciting the storing data as metadata in a field, which is still part of the abstract idea. Regarding step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no further additional elements to consider, and the additional steps in combination with the original additional elements of the claims depended upon still amount to a mere link to generic computing devices as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f) and a general link to a technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gass et al. (US 20180039490 A1) hereinafter Gass.
Regarding claims 32 and 64:
Claim 32 Preamble: A method for presenting business data, the method comprises:
Claim 64 Preamble: A computerized system for presenting business data, the computerized system is configured to execute the steps of:
Claim 32 Body (also representative of claim 64):
-generating a first data model of a first format, (Gass [0057] As shown, analyzer client 208 may comprise or include an analysis agent 228 and/or a transformer 230. Analysis agent 228 may comprise one or more applications, logic, functions, services, routines or executable instructions of any type or form, for parsing a first and/or a second installation of an application and creating a meta-model, described in more detail below. [0072] In a further embodiment, analysis engine 242 may create a meta-model representative of one or more objects of source installation 220. The meta-model, in some embodiments, may be a syntax tree or abstract syntax tree, and may represent relationships between the one or more objects of the source installation 220. In further embodiments, the meta-model may be presented to a user in either a textual or graphical format.) Gass’s meta-model before any transformations is the first data model in a first format, which has the broadest reasonable interpretation of any format including a syntax tree or abstract syntax tree, or the textual/graphical format. The first data model is mapped to table 402 in Fig 4a, or Meta-Model 254 in Fig. 2D.
-wherein the generating comprises using first business logic defined by a first Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) software to retrieve business data; (Gass [0089] As shown, parser engine 284 may comprise an application, process, agent, function, routine, logic, or any type and form of executable instructions for interpreting language tokens located in a source code with language syntax 282 to create an abstract syntax tree 288, also referred to above as a meta-model 254, by applying semantic rules 286. [0118] Generally, tables, fields, records, strings, entries, keys, user interface screens, electronic data exchanges (e.g. files, RFC communications, electronic data interchange (EDI) communications, intermediate document (Idoc) exchanges, etc.), and other such entities or elements may be referred to as data sources. [0066] For example, in one embodiment, syntax checker 238A may include or be associated with a library defining objects in the Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) designed by SAP AG of Walldorf, Germany or using SAP HANA database artifacts.) Gass’s semantic rules are mapped to the first business logic, and Gass outlines the data sources in [0118]. The first ERP software are any of those listed by Gass in [0033], which include ABAP software.
-modifying the first data model to provide a modified data model, by using a second ABAP software that differs from the first ABAP software, (Gass [0054] In another embodiment, the one or more applications may comprise any application that comprises a default or initial installation in a predetermined state, and modifications to objects from the default state. In yet another embodiment, the source system or source installation may comprise any type or form of application containing modifications from an initial or default state. [0093] At step 328, transformation rules may be applied to the meta-model to create a transformed meta-model. At step 330, an object may be modified to generate a transformed object, responsive to dependencies and rules associated with the transformed meta-model. [0006] FIG. 2A is a block diagram of an embodiment of a suite of applications for analyzing and transforming an application from a source installation to a target installation; [0094] At step 340, transformed objects may be uploaded to the target installation. At step 342, the target installation may be post-processed, which may comprise making additional manual changes to objects uploaded to the target installation. At step 344, the target installation may be compiled and/or tested. ) The modified data model is mapped to transformed meta-model 256 in Fig. 2d, or modified tables 402 in Fig. 4a.
-wherein the modifying comprises applying at least one function on the first data model, the at least one function being selected out of multiple functions of the second ABAP software, (Gass [0066] Syntax checker 238A may, in some embodiments, comprise one or more applications, routines, services, functions or executable instructions of any form or type for comparing an object to a standard syntax. In some embodiments, syntax checker 238A may comprise associated libraries, dictionaries, databases, or other data structures identifying syntax, functions, connectors, comments, instructions, code, or other objects of one or more languages. For example, in one embodiment, syntax checker 238A may include or be associated with a library defining objects in the Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) designed by SAP AG of Walldorf, Germany or using SAP HANA database artifacts. [0068] Analysis engine 242 may, in some embodiments, comprise one or more applications, routines, services, functions or executable instructions of any form or type for analyzing a capability of an object for upgrade to a target installation...For example, a comment indicator (“) used by the language of the source installation may be converted to a comment indicator (#) of the language the target installation without requiring additional analysis. Similarly, a function that included no variables in the source installation, such as CLOSE may be converted to a function that includes optional variables in the target installation, such as CLOSE( ), without requiring additional analysis.) Various functions to modify the first data model are taught by Gass. The second ERP software is mapped to the target installation of Gass. These functions can be functions related to the ABAP software as seen in [0066], and examples of functions are provided in [0068].
-wherein a selecting is executed by providing application programming interface (API) methods and application’s built-in functions;(Gass [0053] Additionally, while referred to generally as RFC users, in many implementations, user accounts may communicate with the source installation, target installation, bridge systems, or other devices via an RFC protocol, via JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), a Representational State Transfer (REST) application programming interface (API), via an exchange of XML data, or any other type and form of communication interface. [0033] In an example of such an embodiment, a default installation of an ERP application may be installed on source installation 204. To account for specific needs of the business or industry, the installation may be modified, with custom objects, code, or functions for performing additional tasks or managing additional resources not foreseen by the manufacturer of the ERP application. [0035] As described above, source system 204 may comprise custom objects, codes or functions. Using the methods and systems described herein, target system 206 may be efficiently modified to comprise the custom objects, codes or functions of source system 204. In some embodiments, target system 206 may comprise additional modifications to allow the custom objects, codes or functions to execute or interact properly with the second version of the one or more applications.)
-wherein the functions comprise (a) an addition of data attributes of different kinds, (Gass [0122] In some implementations, tables (and/or other objects) may be associated or joined, which may be similar or distinct operations, depending on implementation. For example, in one implementation, a join may comprise generating a single result set from two or more sets (e.g. columns or rows) of database entries. An association may comprise associating the sets without explicitly merging them or generating a single output, such that operations may be performed on the combined set (e.g. iteratively, on each portion). A join may be a subset of an association or a result of execution of an association, for example, or an association may retain distinct identities of data sets for readability or ease of maintenance. [0119] As discussed above, mappings 406 may refer to explicit or implicit associations between fields, keys, or other data structures. For example, two fields 404 in different tables 402 may be of the same type or have the same value, such as a username, account identifier, SKU, etc. These mappings may be explicit, such as a field or sub-field identifying a corresponding other field or sub-field in another record or table; or may be implicit, such as where both fields have the same type, title, or identifier.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation in view of [0034] of the specification is that the data attributes include adding columns or rows to the data, where the rows can comprise “Formula (mathematical, string and other operations), Text (a column of text which describes data values found in another column), and DBLookup (values retrieved from other DB tables by the process of searching).” Because Gass adds columns or rows to the database, which can include mappings of different types, the limitation has been satisfied.
- the different kinds comprise a formula, a text, and a database lookup,(Gass formula: [0063] The user may instruct the manual conversion agent 234 to make a modification, such as changing the value of the variable, or directing the operation to a different variable. [0137] The data sources may comprise tables, fields, keys, user interface inputs, variables, function call responses, strings, entities, objects, executable code, functions, names, identifiers, user interface screens, electronic data exchanges (e.g. files, RFC, EDI, or IDoc exchanges, etc.), or any other such data source, and may be of the same type or different. text: [0059] For example, in one embodiment, a first language may include a function for allowing text input into a database. The second language may include a similar function, but add different possible text encodings, such as Unicode Transformation Format (UTF)-8 or punycode. Database lookup; [0077] For example, one developer may create an object, such as a current invoices database, with links to customer and sales databases.)
-(b) manipulation of data records,(Gass [0120] During upgrade 410 of a source installation to a target installation, in many instances, tables 402 may be split, merged, joined, coalesced, concatenated, or otherwise modified. Accordingly, fields 404 in these modified tables 402′ may also be modified, such as merged fields that merge, coalesce, or combine corresponding records from different tables; fields renamed to comply with target installation rules such as unicode compliance or case-sensitivity; fields moved to new tables as a result of merging or splitting of tables, etc. Mappings between fields may accordingly be changed, with new mappings created; old mappings removed; or mappings modified to identify new field locations. For example, as a result of joining two tables, each including a user identifier field that are related, the mapping between the two fields may be obviated as the fields are merged.) The BRI of “manipulation of data records” in view of at least [0040] of the instant specification which states, “Another category of functionality provided in the present invention involves manipulation of data records (rows) is the Aggregating functionality Aggregating becomes advantageous when the user wants to merge several rows (data records) to a single row according to a certain data attributes” includes functions like merging and aggregating.
-(c) a grouping functionality, (Gass [0057] In one such embodiment, analyzer client 208 may comprise functions to categorize or identify the object, [0063] Manual conversion agent 234 may comprise one or more applications, routines, services, functions or executable instructions of any form or type for allowing a user or administrator to perform modifications to objects categorized for semi-automatic or manual upgrade.) The BRI of “grouping functionality” in view of at least [0041], “the Grouping functionality is clustering of data records. Contrary to the aggregating function, in grouping data records are not merged but assigned into hierarchical groups according to specified criteria. These criteria are values in specified attributes (columns) of the data. For example, data records for purchasing orders can contain a column which contains the value of the vendor for the purchase, and a column listing the type of industry (business) area for describing the purchased item.” Therefore, the categorization of data records in Gass falls under this limitation.
-(d) conditional formatting functionality; and (Gass [0022] Similarly, new features may be provided that may provide more efficient code structures (e.g. “while” loops rather than mere “if-then” conditions). [0122] In the illustrated example, an accounting item list view may have included queries (e.g. select clauses including “where” conditions identifying specific tables or data fields within tables) from four tables 402 as shown, with similar keys 436.)
-presenting the ABAP output, the ABAP output comprises at least a part of the modified data model. (Gass [0102] At step 318, analysis rules may be applied to each element in the meta-model. At step 320, a transformation capability may be determined for each object. For example, an object may be classified as automatic code, semi-automatic code, or manual code, as described above. At step 322, a report may be generated. In some embodiments, applying analysis rules comprises performing the functions described above in connection with the analysis client and/or analysis engine. In additional embodiments, generating a report comprises analyzing statistics of the transformation capability of each object, such as determining ratios of automatic, semi-automatic, and manual code, and determining cost and/or time to perform upgrades, as described above. [0103] At step 324, analysis rules may be customized, and steps 318-324 repeated. For example, responsive to determining that upgrading may be too costly due to a large number of objects to be transformed, a user may modify analysis rules to exclude a portion of the objects. Steps 318-324 may be repeated in some embodiments until the user is satisfied with the outcome indicated by the generated report.) Gass’s generation of a report after modifications anticipates the limitation.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US 20180039490 A1) in view of Teichmann et al. (US 20140122411 A1) hereinafter Teichmann.
Regarding claim 1:
Gass discloses a system for creating a meta-model within an enterprise resource system such as SAP, enabling the transformation of the model through various modifications, culminating with a report displaying feature. Gass teaches:
Claim 1 preamble: A method for presenting an enterprise resource planning (ERP) output, the method comprises: (Gass [0033] Source system 204 may also be referred to as a source installation 204. In some embodiments, source system or source installation 204 may comprise a server or workstation with an installation or configuration of a version of one or more applications. In one embodiment, the one or more applications may also include an operating system. In another embodiment, the one or more applications may comprise an enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, such as SAP Business Suite, SAP R/3, or SAP High-Performance Analytic Appliance (HANA), manufactured by SAP AG of Walldorf, Germany... [0057] In some such embodiments, presenting the objects and or meta-model may comprise creating and presenting a report, and may include analysis of severity of required upgrades, expected processing time, percentage of upgrade that may be performed automatically, and/or cost to perform upgrading of the source installation.)
Claim 1 Body:
-generating a first data model of a first format, (Gass [0057] As shown, analyzer client 208 may comprise or include an analysis agent 228 and/or a transformer 230. Analysis agent 228 may comprise one or more applications, logic, functions, services, routines or executable instructions of any type or form, for parsing a first and/or a second installation of an application and creating a meta-model, described in more detail below. [0072] In a further embodiment, analysis engine 242 may create a meta-model representative of one or more objects of source installation 220. The meta-model, in some embodiments, may be a syntax tree or abstract syntax tree, and may represent relationships between the one or more objects of the source installation 220. In further embodiments, the meta-model may be presented to a user in either a textual or graphical format.) Gass’s meta-model before any transformations is the first data model in a first format, which has the broadest reasonable interpretation of any format including a syntax tree or abstract syntax tree, or the textual/graphical format. The first data model is mapped to table 402 in Fig 4a, or Meta-Model 254 in Fig. 2D.
-wherein the generating comprises using first business logic defined by a first ERP software to retrieve business data; (Gass [0089] As shown, parser engine 284 may comprise an application, process, agent, function, routine, logic, or any type and form of executable instructions for interpreting language tokens located in a source code with language syntax 282 to create an abstract syntax tree 288, also referred to above as a meta-model 254, by applying semantic rules 286. [0118] Generally, tables, fields, records, strings, entries, keys, user interface screens, electronic data exchanges (e.g. files, RFC communications, electronic data interchange (EDI) communications, intermediate document (IDoc) exchanges, etc.), and other such entities or elements may be referred to as data sources.) Gass’s semantic rules are mapped to the first business logic, and Gass outlines the data sources in [0118]. The first ERP software are any of those listed by Gass in [0033].
-modifying the first data model to provide a modified data model by using a second ERP software that differs from the first ERP software, (Gass [0054] In another embodiment, the one or more applications may comprise any application that comprises a default or initial installation in a predetermined state, and modifications to objects from the default state. In yet another embodiment, the source system or source installation may comprise any type or form of application containing modifications from an initial or default state. [0078] As shown in FIG. 2C, transformer 230 may include a rule engine 246. In some embodiments, this rule engine may be configured by a configuration agent 232 on configuration client 210... A user may select or configure a rule that identifies a working directory to be added to the source code of the object. Rules engine 246 may then apply this rule and modify the object accordingly. [0093] At step 328, transformation rules may be applied to the meta-model to create a transformed meta-model. At step 330, an object may be modified to generate a transformed object, responsive to dependencies and rules associated with the transformed meta-model. [0094] At step 340, transformed objects may be uploaded to the target installation. At step 342, the target installation may be post-processed, which may comprise making additional manual changes to objects uploaded to the target installation. At step 344, the target installation may be compiled and/or tested.) The modified data model is mapped to transformed meta-model 256 in Fig. 2d, or modified tables 402 in Fig. 4a.
-wherein the modifying comprises applying at least one function on the first data model, the at least one function being selected out of multiple functions of the second ERP software, (Gass [0068] Analysis engine 242 may, in some embodiments, comprise one or more applications, routines, services, functions or executable instructions of any form or type for analyzing a capability of an object for upgrade to a target installation...For example, a comment indicator (“) used by the language of the source installation may be converted to a comment indicator (#) of the language the target installation without requiring additional analysis. Similarly, a function that included no variables in the source installation, such as CLOSE may be converted to a function that includes optional variables in the target installation, such as CLOSE( ), without requiring additional analysis. [0079] A user may select or configure a rule that identifies a working directory to be added to the source code of the object. Rules engine 246 may then apply this rule and modify the object accordingly... In further embodiments, configuration agent 232 may be permitted to modify only a subset of predetermined rules in the rules database. One example of a predetermined rule may be a rule indicating that a comment tag from a language associated with a source installation (“) may be transformed or modified to a comment tag from a language associated with a target installation (#). Accordingly, in one embodiment of this example, conversion engine 248 may replace comment tags in a source code of an object responsive to the rule.) Various functions to modify the first data model are taught by Gass. The second ERP software is mapped to the target installation of Gass.
-wherein a selecting is executed by providing application programming interface (API) methods and application’s built-in functions;(Gass [0053] Additionally, while referred to generally as RFC users, in many implementations, user accounts may communicate with the source installation, target installation, bridge systems, or other devices via an RFC protocol, via JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), a Representational State Transfer (REST) application programming interface (API), via an exchange of XML data, or any other type and form of communication interface. [0033] In an example of such an embodiment, a default installation of an ERP application may be installed on source installation 204. To account for specific needs of the business or industry, the installation may be modified, with custom objects, code, or functions for performing additional tasks or managing additional resources not foreseen by the manufacturer of the ERP application. [0035] As described above, source system 204 may comprise custom objects, codes or functions. Using the methods and systems described herein, target system 206 may be efficiently modified to comprise the custom objects, codes or functions of source system 204. In some embodiments, target system 206 may comprise additional modifications to allow the custom objects, codes or functions to execute or interact properly with the second version of the one or more applications.)
-wherein the functions comprise (a) an addition of data attributes of different kinds, (Gass [0122] In some implementations, tables (and/or other objects) may be associated or joined, which may be similar or distinct operations, depending on implementation. For example, in one implementation, a join may comprise generating a single result set from two or more sets (e.g. columns or rows) of database entries. An association may comprise associating the sets without explicitly merging them or generating a single output, such that operations may be performed on the combined set (e.g. iteratively, on each portion). A join may be a subset of an association or a result of execution of an association, for example, or an association may retain distinct identities of data sets for readability or ease of maintenance. [0119] As discussed above, mappings 406 may refer to explicit or implicit associations between fields, keys, or other data structures. For example, two fields 404 in different tables 402 may be of the same type or have the same value, such as a username, account identifier, SKU, etc. These mappings may be explicit, such as a field or sub-field identifying a corresponding other field or sub-field in another record or table; or may be implicit, such as where both fields have the same type, title, or identifier.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation in view of [0034] of the specification is that the data attributes include adding columns or rows to the data, where the rows can comprise “Formula (mathematical, string and other operations), Text (a column of text which describes data values found in another column), and DBLookup (values retrieved from other DB tables by the process of searching).” Because Gass adds columns or rows to the database, which can include mappings of different types, the limitation has been satisfied.
- the different kinds comprise a formula, a text, and a database lookup,(Gass formula: [0063] The user may instruct the manual conversion agent 234 to make a modification, such as changing the value of the variable, or directing the operation to a different variable. [0137] The data sources may comprise tables, fields, keys, user interface inputs, variables, function call responses, strings, entities, objects, executable code, functions, names, identifiers, user interface screens, electronic data exchanges (e.g. files, RFC, EDI, or IDoc exchanges, etc.), or any other such data source, and may be of the same type or different. text: [0059] For example, in one embodiment, a first language may include a function for allowing text input into a database. The second language may include a similar function, but add different possible text encodings, such as Unicode Transformation Format (UTF)-8 or punycode. Database lookup; [0077] For example, one developer may create an object, such as a current invoices database, with links to customer and sales databases.)
-(b) manipulation of data records,(Gass [0120] During upgrade 410 of a source installation to a target installation, in many instances, tables 402 may be split, merged, joined, coalesced, concatenated, or otherwise modified. Accordingly, fields 404 in these modified tables 402′ may also be modified, such as merged fields that merge, coalesce, or combine corresponding records from different tables; fields renamed to comply with target installation rules such as unicode compliance or case-sensitivity; fields moved to new tables as a result of merging or splitting of tables, etc. Mappings between fields may accordingly be changed, with new mappings created; old mappings removed; or mappings modified to identify new field locations. For example, as a result of joining two tables, each including a user identifier field that are related, the mapping between the two fields may be obviated as the fields are merged.) The BRI of “manipulation of data records” in view of at least [0040] of the instant specification which states, “Another category of functionality provided in the present invention involves manipulation of data records (rows) is the Aggregating functionality Aggregating becomes advantageous when the user wants to merge several rows (data records) to a single row according to a certain data attributes” includes functions like merging and aggregating.
-(c) a grouping functionality, (Gass [0057] In one such embodiment, analyzer client 208 may comprise functions to categorize or identify the object, [0063] Manual conversion agent 234 may comprise one or more applications, routines, services, functions or executable instructions of any form or type for allowing a user or administrator to perform modifications to objects categorized for semi-automatic or manual upgrade.) The BRI of “grouping functionality” in view of at least [0041], “the Grouping functionality is clustering of data records. Contrary to the aggregating function, in grouping data records are not merged but assigned into hierarchical groups according to specified criteria. These criteria are values in specified attributes (columns) of the data. For example, data records for purchasing orders can contain a column which contains the value of the vendor for the purchase, and a column listing the type of industry (business) area for de