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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-19 have been examined.
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 1-8, 10-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a medium and system.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
receive a set of rules to apply to a purchase order;
receive, at an organization, a purchase request message from a user associated with the organization;
extract purchase order information from the purchase request message, wherein the purchase order information is associated with a request from the user to make a purchase, and wherein the extracting includes:
generating based on the purchase request message, a parsing tree comprising at least four of the following elements: an expense category, an expense threshold amount, an item description, an item vendor, an item quantity, or an item amount; wherein generating the parsing tree comprises determining at least one element by identifying a phrasal segment proximate to the at least one element in the purchase request message;
determining the purchase order information, wherein the purchase order information comprises two or more of the elements of the parsing tree;
automatically verify the purchase order information by applying at least one rule to the purchase order information, wherein the at least one rule is selected from a set of multiple rules to apply to the purchase order information, wherein each rule in the set of rules is associated with at least one condition that, when present, causes the rule to be applied, wherein the at least one condition relates to least one of: the expense category, the expense threshold amount, the item description, the item vendor, the item quantity, the item amount, an identity of the user, a recurrence or non-recurrence of the request, a requested method of payment, or an account from which funds are requested, and wherein each rule in the set of rules is associated with at least one action applied to a purchase order object when the rule is applied;
apply, to the purchase order object and for each rule in the identified set of rules, the at least one action, wherein the at least one action includes at least one of:
transmit the purchase order object to an approval entity, automatically approve the purchase order, automatically reject the purchase order, alert a requestor, or assign an approver;
generate, the purchase order object using the extracted purchase order information;
upon receiving authorization from each approval entity, generate, by the purchasing system, a digital credit object configured to allow the user to make the purchase, wherein the digital credit object is configured with metadata about the set of rules applicable to the purchase order object;
provide, the digital credit object to the user, for the user to make the purchase.
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial or legal interactions such as marketing and sales activities and/or behaviors.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
at least one computer-readable medium;
a computing system;
a purchasing system;
a hardware processor (claim 14);
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claim 4 which describes a virtual bot does not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for the other dependent claims, such as 2-3, 5-7, these claims are directed at the abstract idea itself. In addition, even if they were not directed at the abstract idea, they do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
at least one computer-readable medium;
a computing system;
a purchasing system;
a hardware processor (claim 14);
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoag (US 2018/0268461).
Referring to Claim 1, Hoag teaches at least one computer-readable medium, excluding transitory signals, and carrying instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receive a set of rules to apply to a purchase order (see Hoag ¶0054);
receive, at a purchasing system of an organization, a purchase request message from a user associated with the organization (see Hoag ¶¶0041,64);
extract, by the purchasing system, purchase order information from the purchase request message (see Hoag ¶¶0041-42,65), wherein the purchase order information is associated with a request from the user to make a purchase (see Hoag ¶¶0041,64), and wherein the extracting includes: generating, by the purchasing system and based on the purchase request message, a parsing tree comprising at least four of the following elements: an expense category, an expense threshold amount, an item description, an item vendor, an item quantity, or an item amount wherein generating the parsing tree comprises determining at least one element by identifying a phrasal segment proximate to the at least one element in the purchase request message (see Hoag ¶¶0042-44,65);
determining, by the purchasing system, the purchase order information, wherein the purchase order information comprises two or more of the elements of the parsing tree (see Hoag ¶¶0050,66);
automatically verify, by the purchasing system, the purchase order information by applying at least one rule to the purchase order information, wherein the at least one rule is selected from a set of multiple rules to apply to the purchase order information, wherein each rule in the set of rules is associated with at least one condition that, when present, causes the rule to be applied, wherein the at least one condition relates to least one of: the expense category, the expense threshold amount, the item description, the item vendor, the item quantity, the item amount, an identity of the user, a recurrence or non-recurrence of the request, a requested method of payment, or an account from which funds are requested, and wherein each rule in the set of rules is associated with at least one action applied to a purchase order object when the rule is applied (see Hoag ¶¶0054-55);
apply, to the purchase order object and for each rule in the identified set of rules, the at least one action, wherein the at least one action includes at least one of: transmit the purchase order object to an approval entity, automatically approve the purchase order, automatically reject the purchase order, alert a requestor, or assign an approver (see Hoag ¶0054);
generate, by the purchasing system, the purchase order object using the extracted purchase order information (see Hoag ¶0056);
upon receiving authorization from each approval entity, generate, by the purchasing system, a digital credit object configured to allow the user to make the purchase, wherein the digital credit object is configured with metadata about the set of rules applicable to the purchase order object (see Hoag ¶¶0056-57);
provide, by the purchasing system, the digital credit object to the user, for the user to make the purchase (see Hoag ¶¶59,70).
Referring to Claim 2, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the at least one action includes at least one of auto-approve, auto-reject, alert requestor, assign approver, trigger external process, or stop processing actions (see Hoag ¶¶0054-55).
Referring to Claim 3, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the at least one condition includes at least one of an amount of the requested purchase, a description of the requested purchase, a category of item or service requested, an identity of the user, a recurrence or non-recurrence of the request, a requested method of payment, or an account from which funds are requested (see Hoag ¶¶0054-55).
Referring to Claim 4, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the purchasing system includes a virtual bot that receives the purchase request message, and wherein the instructions cause the computing system to receive the purchase request message and provide the digital credit object via a collaboration tool (see Hoag ¶0064).
Referring to Claim 5, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to: generate an entry in a purchase order database that includes information about the provided digital credit object and the identified set of rules (see Hoag ¶0020).
Referring to Claim 6, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the provided digital credit object is a virtual credit card, a virtual prepaid card, an amount of digital currency or cryptocurrency, or a purchase order (see Hoag ¶0056).
Referring to Claim 7, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein identifying the set of rules applicable to the purchase order object is further based, at least in part, on contextual information associated with the purchase request message (see Hoag ¶¶0050,53).
Referring to Claim 8, this claim is similar to claims 1-4 and 5-7 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 10, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the at least one action includes any of: transmit the purchase order object to an approval entity, auto-approve, auto-reject, alert requestor, assign approver, trigger external process, or stop processing actions (see Hoag ¶0054).
Referring to Claim 11, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the at least one condition relates to least one of the expense category, the expense threshold amount, the item description, the item vendor, the item quantity, the item amount, an identity of the user, a recurrence or non-recurrence of the request, a requested method of payment, or an account from which funds are requested (see Hoag ¶¶0054-55).
Referring to Claim 12, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 8, the operations further comprising: generating an entry in a purchase order database that includes information about the digital credit object, the set of rules, the purchase, the user associated with the organization, an approval entity, or an amount of the purchase (see Hoag ¶0056).
Referring to Claim 13, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein determining the set of rules applicable to the purchase order object is further based, at least in part, on contextual information associated with the electronic message (see Hoag ¶¶0050,53), wherein the contextual information includes at least two of: a date associated with the electronic message, an identity of the user associated with the organization, an identity of an approver of the purchase order object, a location associated with the user or the approver, a group or department of the user or the approver, a category for the purchase, a domain name or packet header associated with the electronic message, or a vendor associated with the request (see Hoag ¶¶0042-46).
Referring to Claim 14, this claim is similar to claims 1-4 and 5-7 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 16, Hoag teaches the computing system of claim 14, wherein the at least one action includes any of: transmit the purchase order object to an approval entity, auto-approve, auto-reject, alert requestor, assign approver, trigger external process, or stop processing actions (see Hoag ¶0054).
Referring to Claim 17, Hoag teaches the computing system of claim 14, wherein the at least one condition relates to least one of the expense category, the expense threshold amount, the item description, the item vendor, the item quantity, the item amount, an identity of the user, a recurrence or non-recurrence of the request, a requested method of payment, or an account from which funds are requested (see Hoag ¶¶0054-55).
Referring to Claim 18, Hoag teaches the computing system of claim 14, the operations further comprising: generating an entry in a purchase order database that includes information about the digital credit object, the set of rules, the purchase, the user associated with the organization, an approval entity, or an amount of the purchase (see Hoag ¶0056).
Referring to Claim 19, Hoag teaches the computing system of claim 14, wherein determining the set of rules applicable to the purchase order object is further based, at least in part, on contextual information associated with the electronic message (see Hoag ¶¶0050,53), wherein the contextual information includes at least two of: a date associated with the electronic message, an identity of the user associated with the organization, an identity of an approver of the purchase order object, a location associated with the user or the approver, a group or department of the user or the approver, a category for the purchase, a domain name or packet header associated with the electronic message, or a vendor associated with the request (see Hoag ¶¶0042-46).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoag (US 2018/0268461) in view of Reference U (see PTO-892).
Referring to Claim 9, Hoag teaches the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 8, the operations to automatically verify, by the purchasing system, the purchase order information by applying at least one rule to the purchase order information further comprising:
generating, by the purchasing system, a purchase order object using the determined purchase order information (see Hoag ¶0066);
determining the set of multiple rules to apply to the purchase order object (see Hoag ¶¶0054-55);
applying, to the purchase order object and for each rule in the set of rules, the at least one action (see Hoag ¶¶0054-55).
Hoag does not teach changing an order in which the set of rules are applied based on a dragging and dropping operation to re-order at least one rule in the set of rules. However, Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches changing an order in which a set of rules are applied based on a dragging and dropping operation to re-order at least one rule in the set of rules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Hoag would continue to teach generating a purchase order and determining a set of multiple rules to apply to the purchase order except that now the order of which those rules applied could be determined via the drag and drop functionality as taught by Reference U. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 15, this claim is similar to claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Remarks
Additional prior art relevant to the application but not relied upon includes:
Eisner (US 2012/0209746) which teaches requisitioning through e-email.
Johnson (US 2005/0251409) which teaches e-catalog supplier ordering and a portal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688