DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 06/30/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, “…sending the results of the validation to the user interface” should read “…sending the results of the validation to the user interface.”.
Page 5, “…excluding an activation call that would active the draft business entity…” should read “…excluding an activation call that would activate the draft business entity…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8, 11-12, and 16 are objected to because of the following
informalities:
In Claims 3 and 11, “wherein identifying at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in at least an OData batch call for an SAP Fiori application comprises: filtering at least an OData batch call among network traffic for an SAP Fiori application; and identifying at least a location call” should read “wherein identifying the at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in the at least an OData batch call for the draft-based SAP Fiori application comprises: filtering the at least an OData batch call among network traffic for the draft-based SAP Fiori application; and identifying the at least a location call”.
In Claims 8 and 16, “wherein sending the at least an input parameter to a user interface” should read “wherein sending the at least an input parameter to the user interface”.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to methods and falls within the statutory category of processes; Claims 9-16 are directed to systems and falls within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 17-20 are directed to non-transitory computer readable media and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, "Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “determining a uniform resource location (URL) of each of at least a draft business entity for a draft-based SAP Fiori application by identifying at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in at least an OData batch call for the draft-based SAP Fiori application”, “identifying at least an input parameter in the at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity”, “determining a data type for each of the at least an input parameter using the service metadata information”, and “validating the updated at least an input parameter for each of the at least a draft business entity”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe a uniform resource location (URL) from a location call in an OData batch call for a draft-based SAP Fiori application, a person can observe an input parameter in the location call for a draft business entity, a person can mentally determine a data type of the input parameter based on observed service metadata information, and a person can mentally check or observe the updated input parameter for a draft business entity.
Claim 9: It is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it follows the same reasoning for Step 2A Prong 1.
Claim 17: It is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it follows the same reasoning for Step 2A Prong 1.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will
evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “A method for bulk data validation for draft-based SAP Fiori applications, the method comprising”, “A system for bulk data validation for draft-based SAP Fiori applications, the system comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively connected to the processor; and a computing device implemented using the processor and the memory, wherein the computing device is configured for”, and “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor of at least one computer cause the at least one computer to perform steps comprising” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional elements – “obtaining service metadata information for the draft-based SAP Fiori application from an SAP server”, “receiving user input for the at least an input parameter from the user interface”, and “receiving results of the validation from the SAP server” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional elements – “sending the at least an input parameter for each of the at least a draft business entity to a user interface”, “by replaying the at least an OData batch call with the updated at least a location call”, and “sending the results of the validation to the user interface” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional element – “updating the at least an input parameter in the corresponding at least a location call based on the user input” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution record update activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. After
having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been
concluded that the claims not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing
components and functions which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities are also Well-Understood,
Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the
following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions
when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or
as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping").
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the at least a draft business entity comprises a plurality of draft business entities” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “filtering at least an OData batch call among network traffic for an SAP Fiori application” and “identifying at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in the at least an OData batch call”, as drafted, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe and mentally filter an OData batch call among network traffic for an SAP Fiori application, and a person can observe a location call in the OData batch call for the SAP Fiori application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4, it recites an additional abstract idea recitation of “identifying at least a child call and at least a parent metadata call”, as drafted, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe and mentally identify a child call and a parent metadata call by comparing calls. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites an additional abstract idea recitation of “identifying an activation call among the at least an OData batch call using the service metadata information”, as drafted, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally filter an OData batch call to observe an activation call based on observed service metadata information. Further, the claim recites an additional element recitation of “replaying the at least an OData batch call excluding the activation call” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Regarding Step 2B, this insignificant extra-solution activity is also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional and thus does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) " i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network". Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein validating the updated at least an input parameter updated with the user input for each of the at least a draft business entity comprises sending a preparation call to the SAP server” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Regarding Step 2B, this insignificant extra-solution activity is also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional and thus does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network". Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional element recitation of “updating a metadata parameter in the at least an OData batch call based on a response received from the SAP server” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution record update activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Regarding Step 2B, this insignificant extra-solution activity is also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional and thus does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "iii. Electronic recordkeeping". Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein sending the at least an input parameter to a user interface comprises displaying on the user interface the determined data type for each of the at least an input parameter” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Regarding Step 2B, this insignificant extra-solution activity is also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional and thus does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network". Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 14, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 15, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 18, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 19, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 20, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOFFNER et al. Pub. No. US 2017/0075902 Al (hereafter HOFFNER) in view of EVERS et al. Pub. No. US 2016/0253304 Al (hereafter EVERS), and further in view of Richter et al. Pub. No. US 2017/0329505 Al (hereafter Richter).
Regarding claim 1, HOFFNER teaches a method for bulk data validation for draft-based SAP Fiori applications ([0018] “…The transaction controller 135 provides a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) for orchestrating and managing the transaction handling of draft-enabled web applications…”, [0022] “In an embodiment, the transaction controller 135 transmits a request to the database 115 to validate the changes to the other fields of the application data…”), the method comprising … identifying at least an input parameter in the at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity ([0044] “At 405, transaction controller 135 receives a request to edit a draft. At 410, the transaction controller 135 calls an "Edit Draft" function to generate an "Edit Draft" request to be added to the request queue. In an example, the transaction controller 135 calls the "Edit Draft" function when the developer wants to edit a document corresponding to a specific business object. A batch request, including a call for the edit action to a given business entity or object, is created.”, [0045] “At 435, the transaction controller 135 receives an input from the developer to modify a value of a field of the draft…”, Note: A draft call is interpreted as the location call, and the draft’s parameters must be identified in order for input to be received) … sending the at least an input parameter for each of the at least a draft business entity to a user interface ([0044] “…At 430, if the generation of the draft for the given entity or object succeeds, a context is created and returned to the caller that binds the context to the application UI 130.”, [0045] “At 435, the transaction controller 135 receives an input from the developer to modify a value of a field of the draft…”, Note: The application UI is bound to the draft, and the draft’s parameters must be sent to the application UI in order for input to be received); receiving user input for the at least an input parameter from the user interface and updating the at least an input parameter in the corresponding at least a location call based on the user input ([0045] “At 435, the transaction controller 135 receives an input from the developer to modify a value of a field of the draft. In an exemplary implementation, the changes made by the developer are transmitted immediately to the backend 105, for example, via HTTP PUT or Merge requests. These chances are saved in the draft or secondary persistency on the backend 105 to prevent data loss…”, Note: A draft call is interpreted as the corresponding location call); validating the updated at least an input parameter for each of the at least a draft business entity by replaying the at least an OData batch call with the updated at least a location call ([0045] “…At 440, the "Edit Draft" function checks whether a client-side validation failed in response to the input and whether client-side errors exist. For example, the "Edit Draft" function checks for client-side errors in response to the input at the application UI 130, such as, invalid date entry, data type error, etc…”, [0022] “In an embodiment, the transaction controller 135 transmits a request to the database 115 to validate the changes to the other fields of the application data…”, [0049] “At 470, the "Edit Draft" function transmits the batch request with the pending changes, or the batch request with the pending changes and the "Prepare Draft" function for the draft of the application data. The "Edit Draft" function transmits the batch request over the request queue. At 475, the batch request is sent to the backend 105. The "Edit Draft" function waits until the batch request is executed and handles the response to the batch request (e.g., showing an error message in case of failure). The "Edit Draft" function then informs the caller, e.g., the transaction controller 135 accordingly.”, [0016] “…The client devices (e.g. 125) may communicate with the gateway server 120 using Open Data (OData®) protocol through hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) or hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) requests…”, Note: A draft call is interpreted as the location call); and receiving results of the validation from the SAP server and sending the results of the validation to the user interface ([0045] “…At 445, if client-side errors exist, the transaction controller 135 displays the errors on the application UI 130, such as, invalid date entry, data type error, etc., and blocks the request queue…”, [0022] “…In response to the request, the transaction controller 135 receives a response indicating whether the changes are validated…”, [0049] “…At 475, the batch request is sent to the backend 105. The Edit Draft" function waits until the batch request is executed and handles the response to the batch request (e.g., showing an error message in case of failure). The "Edit Draft" function then informs the caller, e.g., the transaction controller 135 accordingly.”).
HOFFNER fails to teach determining a uniform resource location (URL) of each of at least a draft business entity for a draft-based SAP Fiori application by identifying at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in at least an OData batch call for the draft-based SAP Fiori application.
In analogous art EVERS teaches determining a uniform resource location (URL) of each of at least a draft business entity for a draft-based SAP Fiori application by identifying at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in at least an OData batch call for the draft-based SAP Fiori application ([0087] “…The request may comprise an (unique) identification address of said electronic document.”, [0088] “The identification address may be defined or generated in accordance with a communication protocol of the network 103A-D that is used by the mobile telecommunication device 101 to send the request to the telecommunication server 105. For example, the identification address may comprise an IP address, media access control (MAC) address, a URL, a database entry, an Ethernet address etc.”, [0080] “The telecommunication server 105 and client terminals 101A-N may communicate via a stateless protocol such as the Open Data Protocol (OData) using HTTP or HTTPS…”, [0098] “For example, the electronic document 322 (or the instance of the electronic document) may be accessed by a client terminal 101A-N via a network 103B of the one or more networks e.g. using an identification address as described above with reference to FIG. 2…”, [0093] “The term "electronic document" (or initial draft document or edit draft copy)…”, [0119] “The client terminal 101A may receive modifications to the set of user data e.g. in input fields of the edit draft copy, and may send the modifications to the telecommunication server 105…”, Note: A draft call is interpreted as the location call).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HOFFNER to incorporate the teachings of EVERS in order to access specific drafts/electronic documents for modification purposes (EVERS [0098] “For example, the electronic document 322 (or the instance of the electronic document) may be accessed by a client terminal 101A-N via a network 103B of the one or more networks e.g. using an identification address as described above with reference to FIG. 2…”, [0119] “The client terminal 101A may receive modifications to the set of user data e.g. in input fields of the edit draft copy, and may send the modifications to the telecommunication server 105…”).
HOFFNER and EVERS fail to teach obtaining service metadata information for the draft-based SAP Fiori application from an SAP server … determining a data type for each of the at least an input parameter using the service metadata information.
In analogous art Richter teaches obtaining service metadata information for the draft-based SAP Fiori application from an SAP server ([0129] “…The OData Service implementation may get values from corresponding SET/GET parameters (in case of an ABAP backend system), derive the value from organizational structures or use any other User Context Persistency as a source…”, [0145] “…For this purpose, the applications exposing parameters can enable the settings UI 235 to attach to an OData service providing the respective value help, validation, and metadata information…”) … determining a data type for each of the at least an input parameter using the service metadata information ([0145] “…For this purpose, the applications exposing parameters can enable the settings UI 235 to attach to an OData service providing the respective value help, validation, and metadata information. In operation, the editor may allow the use of the plug-in mechanism to expose relevant metadata (e.g., descriptive text of parameter name, OData service, entity property for value help and type information)…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HOFFNER and EVERS to incorporate the teachings of Richter to provide a consistent and helpful user experience (Richter [0145] “…The settings UI 235 can use a smart infrastructure to enable a consistent and helpful user experience.”).
Regarding claim 2, HOFFNER, EVERS, and Richter teach the method of claim 1, and HOFFNER further teaches wherein the at least a draft business entity comprises a plurality of draft business entities ([0018] “…As used herein, "draft-enabled" refers to the ability to maintain a secondary persistency or secondary data storage for the application content or application data on the database 115 in addition to the primary persistency of active business data…”, [0014] “…As used herein, application data may refer to the data associated with one or more business objects of a web-based application and the views of the user interface corresponding to the business objects…”).
Regarding claim 3, HOFFNER, EVERS, and Richter teach the method of claim 1, and EVERS further teaches wherein identifying at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in at least an OData batch call for an SAP Fiori application comprises: filtering at least an OData batch call among network traffic for an SAP Fiori application ([0087] “…The request may comprise an (unique) identification address of said electronic document.”, [0088] “The identification address may be defined or generated in accordance with a communication protocol of the network 103A-D that is used by the mobile telecommunication device 101 to send the request to the telecommunication server 105. For example, the identification address may comprise an IP address, media access control (MAC) address, a URL, a database entry, an Ethernet address etc.”, [0080] “The telecommunication server 105 and client terminals 101A-N may communicate via a stateless protocol such as the Open Data Protocol (OData) using HTTP or HTTPS…”, [0098] “For example, the electronic document 322 (or the instance of the electronic document) may be accessed by a client terminal 101A-N via a network 103B of the one or more networks e.g. using an identification address as described above with reference to FIG. 2…”, [0093] “The term "electronic document" (or initial draft document or edit draft copy)…”, [0119] “The client terminal 101A may receive modifications to the set of user data e.g. in input fields of the edit draft copy, and may send the modifications to the telecommunication server 105…”, Note: One draft call is interpreted as the batch call); and identifying at least a location call for each of the at least a draft business entity in the at least an OData batch call ([0087] “…The request may comprise an (unique) identification address of said electronic document.”, [0088] “The identification address may be defined or generated in accordance with a communication protocol of the network 103A-D that is used by the mobile telecommunication device 101 to send the request to the telecommunication server 105. For example, the identification address may comprise an IP address, media access control (MAC) address, a URL, a database entry, an Ethernet address etc.”, [0080] “The telecommunication server 105 and client terminals 101A-N may communicate via a stateless protocol such as the Open Data Protocol (OData) using HTTP or HTTPS…”, [0098] “For example, the electronic document 322 (or the instance of the electronic document) may be accessed by a client terminal 101A-N via a network 103B of the one or more networks e.g. using an identification address as described above with reference to FIG. 2…”, [0093] “The term "electronic document" (or initial draft document or edit draft copy)…”, [0119] “The client terminal 101A may receive modifications to the set of user data e.g. in input fields of the edit draft copy, and may send the modifications to the telecommunication server 105…”, Note: A draft call is interpreted as the location call).
Regarding claim 4, HOFFNER, EVERS, and Richter teach the method of claim 3, and HOFFNER further teaches comprising identifying at least a child call and at least a parent metadata call ([0047] “…For example, the draft is associated with a hierarchical business object model, and the draft includes a draft root and draft nodes. The changes to a value on the draft root may influence the values at an item/node level, and vice versa. For instance, the draft may correspond to draft root "sales order", which includes sales order items. When a value is changed at sales order level, the change in the value may influence values at sales order item level. Thus, the refresh of the data model 310 ensures that the draft root and the draft items are refreshed in order to obtain updated data from the backend 105.”, Note: The draft root is interpreted as the parent metadata call and the draft nodes are interpreted as child calls).
Regarding claim 5, HOFFNER, EVERS, and Richter teach the method of claim 1, and HOFFNER further teaches wherein validating the updated at least an input parameter updated with the user input for each of the at least a draft business entity comprises: identifying an activation call among the at least an OData batch call using the service metadata information ([0050] “Once the developer is satisfied with the changes to the draft, the developer may activate the draft through the application UI 130 … The draft may be activated by calling an "Activate Draft" function. The "Activate Draft" function creates a batch request including a call of an activate action for the draft…”, [0016] “…The client devices (e.g. 125) may communicate with the gateway server 120 using Open Data (OData®) protocol through hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) or hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) requests…”); and replaying the at least an OData batch call excluding the activation call ([0045] “…At 440, the "Edit Draft" function checks whether a client-side validation failed in response to the input and whether client-side errors exist. For example, the "Edit Draft" function checks for client-side errors in response to the input at the application UI 130, such as, invalid date entry, data type error, etc…”, [0022] “In an embodiment, the transaction controller 135 transmits a request to the database 115 to validate the changes to the other fields of the application data…”, [0049] “At 470, the "Edit Draft" function transmits the batch request with the pending changes, or the batch request with the pending changes and the "Prepare Draft" function for the draft of the application data. The "Edit Draft" function transmits the batch request over the request queue. At 475, the batch request is sent to the backend 105. The "Edit Draft" function waits until the batch request is executed and handles the response to the batch request (e.g., showing an error message in case of failure). The "Edit Draft" function then informs the caller, e.g., the transaction controller 135 accordingly.”, [0050] “Once the developer is satisfied with the changes to the draft, the developer may activate the draft through the application UI 130 … The draft may be activated by calling an "Activate Draft" function. The "Activate Draft" function creates a batch request including a call of an activate action for the draft…”, [0016] “…The client devices (e.g. 125) may communicate with the gateway server 120 using Open Data (OData®) protocol through hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) or hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) requests…”, Note: Validation of the draft occurs separately from the "Activate Draft" function).
Regarding claim 6, HOFFNER, EVERS, and Richter teach the method of claim 1, and HOFFNER further teaches wherein validating the updated at least an input parameter updated with the user input for each of the at least a draft business entity comprises sending a preparation call to the SAP server ([0046] “At 450, the transaction controller 135 checks whether the field to be modified is annotated using an annotations document. If annotations (e.g. side-effect annotations) are set to the field to be modified, the transaction controller 135 is configured to determine other fields in the draft that are influenced in response to the user input to modify the field. The transaction controller 135 uses a "Prepare Draft" function to control and modify other fields in the draft that are influenced in response to the user input. At 455, if the field is annotated with an annotation, the "Prepare Draft" function is added to the request queue.”).
Regarding claim 7, HOFFNER, EVERS, and Richter teach the method of claim 6, and HOFFNER further teaches further comprising updating a metadata parameter in the at least an OData batch call based on a response received from the SAP server ([0046] “At 450, the transaction controller 135 checks whether the field to be modified is annotated using an annotations document. If annotations (e.g. side-effect annotations) are set to the field to be modified, the transaction controller 135 is configured to determine other fields in the draft that are influenced in response to the user input to modify the field…”, [0047] “At 460, a refresh of data model 310 is added to the request queue if the annotation is set, since the "Prepare Draft" function performs determinations that could have side-effects to the entire draft (e.g., draft header and items) … For example, the draft is associated with a hierarchical business object model, and the draft includes a draft root and draft nodes. The changes to a value on the draft root may influence the values at an item/node level, and vice versa. For instance, the draft may correspond to draft root "sales order", which includes sales order items. When a value is changed at sales order level, the change in the value may influence values at sales order item level. Thus, the refresh of the data model 310 ensures that the draft root and the draft items are refreshed in order to obtain updated data from the backend 105.”, [0016] “…The client devices (e.g. 125) may communicate with the gateway server 120 using Open Data (OData®) protocol through hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) or hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) requests…”, Note: The values of the draft root and nodes are interpreted as metadata parameters, and the checking of the annotations document is interpreted as the response received).
Regarding claim 8, HOFFNER, EVERS, and Richter teach the method of claim 1, and Richter further teaches wherein sending the at least an input parameter to a user interface comprises displaying on the user interface the determined data type for each of the at least an input parameter ([0145] “…For this purpose, the applications exposing parameters can enable the settings UI 235 to attach to an OData service providing the respective value help, validation, and metadata information. In operation, the editor may allow the use of the plug-in mechanism to expose relevant metadata (e.g., descriptive text of parameter name, OData service, entity property for value help and type information)…”).
Regarding claim 9, HOFFNER further teaches a system for bulk data validation for draft-based SAP Fiori applications ([0018] “…The transaction controller 135 provides a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) for orchestrating and managing the transaction handling of draft-enabled web applications…”, [0022] “In an embodiment, the transaction controller 135 transmits a request to the database 115 to validate the changes to the other fields of the application data…”), the system comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively connected to the processor; and a computing device implemented using the processor and the memory, wherein the computing device is configured for ([0054] “…A computer readable storage medium may be a non-transitory computer readable storage medium…”, [0055] “FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary computer system 600, according to an embodiment. The computer system 600 includes a processor 605 that executes software instructions or code stored on a computer readable storage medium 655 to perform the above-illustrated methods…”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, HOFFNER further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor of at least one computer cause the at least one computer to perform steps comprising ([0054] “…A computer readable storage medium may be a non-transitory computer readable storage medium…”, [0055] “FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary computer system 600, according to an embodiment. The computer system 600 includes a processor 605 that executes software instructions or code stored on a computer readable storage medium 655 to perform the above-illustrated methods…”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 20150142781 A1 is cited because it discloses updating entity parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
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, April Y Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196