DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed May 22nd, 2025. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 5/22/25, with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 2/25/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 filed 5/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-9 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are not abstract and recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Beginning with Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Citing SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco System, Inc., 930 F. 3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019), Applicant argues “the limitations of claims 1 and 7 require the automated generation, evaluation, and transformation of structured configuration data across a parameterized product model – functions that the human mind is not practically equipped to perform.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims recite the performance of the argued “automated generation, evaluation, and transformation of structured configuration data” merely “by a processor”. Per the 2019 Update regarding Subject Matter Eligibility, ‘A Claim That Requires A Computer May Still Recite A Mental Process’, “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a generic computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. By way of example, examiners may review the specification to determine if the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.” Examiner asserts that the limitations merely use the processor as a tool to perform the functions that could be performed by the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 6 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “such operations cannot be performed accurately or practically by a human without computational assistance, as they require traversal and filtering of a large data space”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, supported by the cited paragraph [0024] of the provided Specification, the determination of a parameter associate with the non-compatible configuration as well as the identification of the remaining configurations as the compatible configurations associated with the product are analogous to mere observations and evaluations of the human mind. The argued traversal and filtering of a large data space are not present within the amended claim. As stated above, the limitations merely use the processor as a tool to perform the functions that could be performed by the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, on page 7 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the conversion process is not a mere data lookup or decision tree; it requires interdependent filtering and restructuring of configuration sets across digital formats, involving a rule-matching algorithm that links parameter exclusions with ERP-compatible outputs”. Examiner asserts that per the cited paragraph [0024] and claimed subject matter, the argued detail regarding the rule-matching algorithm linking parameter exclusions is not present in the claims. As stated above, the determination of a parameter associate with the non-compatible configuration as well as the identification of the remaining configurations as the compatible configurations associated with the product are analogous to mere observations and evaluations of the human mind. The limitations merely use the processor as a tool to perform the functions that could be performed by the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 7 of the provided remarks to argue “the claimed steps are not isolated mental steps but are inextricably tied to the operation of an industrial computing system”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the present claims merely recite “an enterprise resource planning system; a processor; a machine component; A system for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the system comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, Applicant argues that claims are integrated into a practical application. Specifically, on page 7 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims solve a technical problem of manually entering product configuration logic into ERP systems is error-prone, unscalable, and incompatible with dynamic parameter-based product catalogs. Citing McRO v. Bandai, 837 F. 3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Applicant argues “the improvement is the conditional conversion of excluded configurations into acceptable ones using structured logic rules – not a generic process, but a problem-specific solution implemented through automated transformation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting, as stated above, the amended claims do not recite the use of structured logic rules to provide conditional conversions. The claims merely recite the use of a processor to determine a parameter associated with the non-compatible configuration as well as identify the remaining configurations as the compatible configurations associated with the product. This is not analogous to the compared McRO v. Bandai claims which present an improvement to computer animation which incorporated particular claimed rules in computer animation to improve the existing process. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues that “the inventive concept lies in the specific application of parameter-aware conversion logic to dynamically transform compatibility rules for ERP consumption”. Citing the amended limitations, Applicant argues “these are not generic computer functions, nor do they merely automate well-understood activity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, the determination of a parameter associate with the non-compatible configuration as well as the identification of the remaining configurations as the compatible configurations associated with the product are analogous to mere observations and evaluations of the human mind. The limitations merely use the processor as a tool to perform the functions that could be performed by the human mind. Therefore, these limitations do not present an inventive concept. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, on page 9 of the provided remarks, citing DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F. 3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Applicant argues the “solution is not abstract data handling – it is a technical improvement to how ERP compatibility rules are generated and validated dynamically and automatically from multi-parameter data inputs.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above that the generation and validation of ERP compatibility rules is a form of abstract data handling. The claimed method being performed “by a processor” merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0017-19 and Figure 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these limitations do not present an inventive concept. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 filed 5/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Beginning with primary reference Bieganski, Applicant argues on page 10 of the provided remarks, “Bieganski does not disclose or suggest Applicant’s claimed process for automatically generating all possible valid configuration permutations by combining one configuration from each parameter.” Examiner respectfully disagrees begins by asserting that the claims do not recite “generating all possible valid configuration permutations” but simply “a plurality of unique combinations of configurations”. This generation of configurations concept is analogous to the cited use of the compatibility modifier to generate a modified recommendation set using compatibility rules in Bieganski. Per cited Col 10 lines 43-49 the compatibility modifier operates as a process within the computer system one or more processors which is analogous to the claimed “by a processor” present in the amended claims. Therefore, cited Bieganski discloses the argued limitation. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 10-11 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “Bieganski lacks any disclosure of real-time rule adaptation based on exclusion logic”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Bieganski discloses the ability of the compatibility modifier to remove items from the recommendation set, per Figure 4A and related text. Therefore, Bieganski does disclose real-time rule adaptation based on exclusion logic. This is combination with cited Cockcroft (U.S 2011/0173543 A1) discloses the amended claim limitations.
Further, on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “Bieganski does not teach the generation of ERP-ready compatibility rules that define logical relationships using constructs such as AND, OR, and NOT.” As this statement refers to the claimed limitations of dependent claim 5, this argument is moot as argued Bieganski was not cited to disclose the argued limitations.
Regarding secondary reference Huang, Applicant argues on page 12 that the cited reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Bieganski. As stated above, the combination of Bieganski and Cockcroft (U.S 2011/0173543 A1) disclose the amended limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 9, Applicant argues on pages 15-16 that the cited reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Bieganski. As stated above, the combination of Bieganski and Cockcroft (U.S 2011/0173543 A1) disclose the amended limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 7 (system), and dependent claims 2-6, and 8-10, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process) and claim 7 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, product compatibility rules defined for a plurality of products in a first standard format, wherein the product compatibility rules define, for each product, a plurality of parameters and one or more configurations associated with each of the plurality of parameters which are at least one of compatible and non-compatible with the corresponding product; generating, by the processor, a plurality of unique combinations of configurations for each product by combining one configuration from each parameter of the plurality of parameters, and converting one or more non-compatible configurations into compatible configurations based on remaining configurations associated with a corresponding parameter; identifying, by the processor, one or more products of the plurality of products for each unique combination of configurations; and creating, by the processor, product compatibility rules for the enterprise resource planning system by defining a relationship between the one or more products and each unique combination of configurations in a second standard format (Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are creating compatibility rules by generating a plurality of unique combinations of configurations for each product by converting non-compatible configurations into compatible configurations; identifying one or more products of the plurality of products for each unique combination of configurations; and creating product compatibility rules by defining a relationship between the one or more products and each unique combination of configurations in a second standard format, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are creating product compatibility rules, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the product; identifying the plurality of unique combinations; the second standard format; and grouping the one or more products based on the unique combination of configurations. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “obtaining, product compatibility rules defined for a plurality of products in a first standard format, wherein the product compatibility rules define, for each product, a plurality of parameters and one or more configurations associated with each of the plurality of parameters which are at least one of compatible and non-compatible with the corresponding product” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “an enterprise resource planning system; a processor; a machine component; A system for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the system comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processor” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). In addition, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10 further narrow the abstract idea.
The claimed “an enterprise resource planning system; a processor; a machine component; A system for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the system comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-6; and system claims 7-10 recite “an enterprise resource planning system; a processor; a machine component; A system for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the system comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processor”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0017-19 and Figure 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “obtaining, product compatibility rules defined for a plurality of products in a first standard format, wherein the product compatibility rules define, for each product, a plurality of parameters and one or more configurations associated with each of the plurality of parameters which are at least one of compatible and non-compatible with the corresponding product” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-6 and 8-10 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieganski (U.S 6,412,012 B1) in view of Cockcroft (U.S 2011/0173543 A1) in view of Huang (U.S 2005/0144087 A1).
Claims 1 and 7
Regarding Claim 1, Bieganski discloses the following:
A method for creating product compatibility rules for an system, the method comprising [see at least Col 11 lines 6-36 for reference to the method for applying unweighted unidirectional rules to an ordered recommendation set; Figure 3 and related text regarding implementing a compatibility modifier; Figure 4A & 4B and related text regarding a method for modifying a set of recommendations to product a compatibility-modified recommendation output set]
obtaining, by a processor, product compatibility rules defined for a plurality of products, wherein the product compatibility rules define, for each product, a plurality of parameters and one or more configurations associated with each of the plurality of parameters which are at least one of compatible and non-compatible with a corresponding product [see at least Col 8 lines 56-66 for reference to the item compatibility rules expressing compatibility relationships among items; Col 10 lines 58-60 for reference to the compatibility modifier receiving the item compatibility rules; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 204 ‘item compatibility rules’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 306 ‘GET ITEM COMPATIBILITY RULES’; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 606 ‘Item Compatibility Rule Set’]
generating, by the processor, a plurality of unique combinations of configurations for each product by combining one configuration from each parameter of the plurality of parameters, and converting one or more non-compatible configurations into compatible configurations [see at least Col 5 lines 1-2 for reference to the system using a compatibility modifier to add items, or subtract items from the recommendation list; Col 9 lines 59-62 for reference to item set substitute rules (incompatibility rules) as well as bi-directional item set compatibility rules can be transformed into item-to-item rules by pairing each item from the left-hand-side set with every items in the right-hand-side set; Col 10 lines 37-49 for reference to the compatibility modifier applying the received data to generate a modified recommendation set; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 307 ‘USING ITEM COMPATIBILITY RULES, MODIFY RECOMMENDATION SET’; Figure 14A and 14B for reference to different processor configurations for a compatibility modifier]
identifying, by the processor, one or more products of the plurality of products for each unique combination of configurations [see at least Col 15 lines 12-16 for reference to a set of items compatible with those in the match set being generated; Col 16 lines 26-27 for reference to the substitute rule inference method finding pairs of items; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 602 ‘MATCH SET’; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 752 ‘FIND THE SET OF ITEMS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ITEMS IN THE MATCH SET’]
creating, by the processor, product compatibility rules for the system by defining a relationship between the one or more products and each unique combination of configurations [see at least Col 9 lines 43-47 for reference to the creation of a rule by transforming a set of unidirectional rules among individual items; Col 10 lines 18-36 for reference to the item compatibility rules being created in various ways]
While Bieganski discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose a method for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, product compatibility rules defined for a plurality of products in a first standard format; converting one or more non-compatible configurations into compatible configurations based on remaining configurations associated with a corresponding parameter; and creating, by the processor, product compatibility rules for the enterprise resource planning system by defining a relationship between the one or more products and each unique combination of configurations in a second standard format.
However, Cockcroft discloses the following:
generating, by the processor, a plurality of unique combinations of configurations for each product by combining one configuration from each parameter of the plurality of parameters, and converting one or more non-compatible configurations into compatible configurations based on remaining configurations associated with a corresponding parameter [see at least Paragraph 0033 for reference to the compatibility module removing identified items that are incompatible with the one or more buyer selected items; Paragraph 0066 for reference to the compatibility module searching data storage for a plurality of items that are associated with the component class of the product identified; Paragraph 0069 for reference to the search results may include all of the items in the data storage device or a subset of the items, the subset of items being a result of different mechanisms that are utilized to filter the search results to reduce the number of items to be analyzed; Paragraph 0071 for reference to the compatibility module determining whether the item may be associated with a component class of the product based on the item attributes associated with the item; Paragraph 0075 for reference to the items may be analyzed by the compatibility module to generate a list of one or more compatible items by removing items that are incompatible with items that the buyer selection; Paragraph 0075 for reference to the removed items may be removed only in response to the current list of items that the buyer had previously selected and may be re-introduced if the composition of the list changes so that they are not longer incompatible with the items in the list; Paragraph 0084 for reference to the list of items changes as more items are selected because the compatibility of the unselected items displayed may be dynamically evaluated each time a new item is selected and moved to the list of previously selected items]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compatibility modification of Bieganski to include the generation of configurations and dynamic compatibility evaluation of Cockcroft. Doing so may reduce customer burden in purchasing the product and thus increase sales, as stated by Cockcroft (Paragraph 0020).
While the combination of Bieganski and Cockcroft disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose a method for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, product compatibility rules defined for a plurality of products in a first standard format; and creating, by the processor, product compatibility rules for the enterprise resource planning system by defining a relationship between the one or more products and each unique combination of configurations in a second standard format.
However, Huang discloses the following:
A method for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the method comprising [see at least Paragraph 0002 for reference to the invention relates to product configuration and sales systems, and more specifically to systems to integrate various sales systems with enterprise resource planning systems; Paragraph 0008 for reference to the method for transferring data between two disparate processing systems; Paragraph 0018 for reference to the integrated sales and enterprise resource planning system provides an integration framework that permits product sales and customer information generated and used within an integrated sales application module to be passed to and from an enterprise resource planning (ERP) processing module; Figure 5 and related text regarding the method for integrating a custom connector module with an integrated sales and enterprise resource planning system]
obtaining, by a processor, product compatibility rules defined for a plurality of products in a first standard format [see at least Paragraph 0085 for reference to the ProductList tells what product or products use this dependency which is used to makes the rules apply only to the products listed; Paragraph 0086 for reference to preconditions within the ERP processing module being similar to configuration rules and for each precondition; Paragraph 0145 for reference to data and corresponding product rules may be transformed from data used within integrated selling application module into data supported within ERP processing module; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 601 ‘GENERATE INITIAL XML DATA’]
creating, by the processor, product compatibility rules for the enterprise resource planning system by defining a relationship between the one or more products and each unique combination of configurations in a second standard format [see at least Paragraph 0007 for reference to the integrated sales and enterprise resource planning processing system may be used to transfer sales data between two software modules having different data formats and data organizations; Paragraph 0018 for reference to the ERP connector module translating ERP processing module internal data to the common data format used within integration interface module; Paragraph 0085 for reference to the ProductList tells what product or products use this dependency which is used to makes the rules apply only to the products listed; Paragraph 0086 for reference to preconditions within the ERP processing module being similar to configuration rules and for each precondition, a grammar rule is created; Paragraph 0108 for reference to the program converting a single dependency into several rules or including grammar rules or value options; Paragraph 0145 for reference to data and corresponding product rules may be transformed from data used within integrated selling application module into data supported within ERP processing module; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 602 ‘TRANSFORM XML TO GENERATE TRANSFORMED SPECIFIC XML’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Bieganski to include the enterprise resource planning system application of Huang. Doing so would allow sellers of products to define custom configuration of products to satisfy customer needs, as stated by Huang (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 7, Bieganski teaches system for creating product compatibility rules for an enterprise resource planning system, the system comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processor [Paragraph 0023; Figure 1]. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Bieganski, Cockcroft, and Huang.
Claims 2 and 8
While the combination of Bieganski, Cockcroft, and Huang discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Bieganski discloses the following:
wherein the product includes a machine component, and the parameters include one or more of features, components, or parts associated with the machine component [see at least Col 7 lines 28-40 for reference to set of items being flexible and defining the products, services, or other goods that customers may buy or own; Col 7 lines 65-67 for reference to the shopping set including item for which the user has indicated a current intent to purchase or consume; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 202 ‘shopping set’ and item 205 ‘historical set’]
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4 and 10
While the combination of Bieganski, Cockcroft, and Huang discloses the limitations above, Bieganski does not disclose wherein the second standard format includes variant configuration associated with the enterprise resource planning system.
Regarding Claim 4, Huang discloses the following:
wherein the second standard format includes variant configuration associated with the enterprise resource planning system [see at least Paragraph 0051 for reference to data mapping being done between selling application module and ERP Variant Configuration data; Paragraph 0052 for reference to variant tables including single characteristic variant tables, actions and procedures, constraints and preconditions; Paragraph 0052 for reference to variant tables being used to store combinations of values for different characteristic]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Bieganski to include the variant configuration of Huang. Doing so would allow sellers of products to define custom configuration of products to satisfy customer needs, as stated by Huang (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5
While the combination of Bieganski, Cockcroft, and Huang discloses the limitations above, Bieganski does not disclose wherein the variant configuration associated with the enterprise resource planning system is defined using one or more of AND, OR, and NOT relationship.
Regarding Claim 5, Huang discloses the following:
wherein the variant configuration associated with the enterprise resource planning system is defined using one or more of AND, OR, and NOT relationship [see at least Paragraph 0051 for reference to data mapping being done between selling application module and ERP Variant Configuration data; Paragraph 0052 for reference to variant tables including single characteristic variant tables, actions and procedures, constraints and preconditions; Paragraph 0052 for reference to variant tables being used to store combinations of values for different characteristic]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Bieganski to include the variant configuration of Huang. Doing so would allow sellers of products to define custom configuration of products to satisfy customer needs, as stated by Huang (Paragraph 0007).
Claim 6
While the combination of Bieganski, Cockcroft, and Huang disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Bieganski discloses the following:
wherein creating the product compatibility rules includes grouping, by the processor, the one or more products based on the unique combination of configurations [see at least Col 8 lines 56-64 for reference to item compatibility rules relating individual items, sets of items, or specific collections, and they may include weight factors or priorities to indicate the relative importance of or accuracy of the rule; Col 9 lines 32-33 for reference to the rules relating to set or collections of items; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 204 ‘item compatibility rules’]
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieganski (U.S 6,412,012 B1) in view of Cockcroft (U.S 2011/0173543 A1) in view of Huang (U.S 2005/0144087 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 7, in view of Beringer (U.S 2019/0294734 A1).
Claims 3 and 9
While the combination of Bieganski, Cockcroft, and Huang discloses the limitations above, Bieganski does not disclose wherein identifying one or more products of the plurality of products for each unique combination of configurations includes identifying the plurality of unique combinations as a pivot identifier field and determining field values associated with the plurality of products for each unique combination.
Regarding Claim 3, Huang discloses the following:
wherein identifying one or more products of the plurality of products for each unique combination of configurations includes identifying the plurality of unique combinations as a field and determining field values associated with the plurality of products for each unique combination [see at least Paragraph 0010 for reference to the method generates XML data associated with a data fields of a selling application module used to transfer a set of data from the Selling application module to an enterprise resource planning module; Paragraph 0045 for reference to Table 1 & Table 2 describing various fields within the class; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 502 ‘CREATE NEW SCHEMA IN THE METADATA DATABASE AND CREATE FIELDS NEEDED FOR CLIENT’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Bieganski to include the field value specification of Huang. Doing so would allow sellers of products to define custom configuration of products to satisfy customer needs, as stated by Huang (Paragraph 0007).
While Huang discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein identifying one or more products of the plurality of products for each unique combination of configurations includes identifying the plurality of unique combinations as a pivot identifier field.
However, Beringer discloses the following:
wherein identifying one or more products of the plurality of products for each unique combination of configurations includes identifying the plurality of unique combinations as a pivot identifier field [see at least Paragraph 0661 for reference to the system enabling identification of one or more pivot identifiers; Paragraph 0662 for reference to pivot identifiers being used to relate different events or generate or build sets of events; Paragraph 0681 for reference to the pivot identifiers corresponding to a field associated with the set of data or events of the set of data; Figure 43 and related text regarding item 4308 ‘ENABLE IDENTIFICATION OF PIVOT IDENTIFIER AND/OR STEP IDENTIFIER’; Figure 44 and related text regarding item 4404 ‘RECEIVE PIVOT IDENTIFIER’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the field value specification of Huang to include the pivot identifier field of Beringer. Doing so enables search and analytics capabilities that can extend beyond the data stored on indexers to include external data systems, common storage, query acceleration data stores, ingested data buffers, etc., as stated by Beringer (Paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2008/0140474 A1
Yu et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY CONFIGURING INFORMATION SYSTEM
US 2017/0213176 A1
Chen et al.
WORKFLOW CUSTOMIZATION
US 2018/0046965 A1
Berlandier et al.
EXECUTING A SET OF BUSINESS RULES ON INCOMPLETE DATA
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625