Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 18/381,447 received on 02/09/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment. Claims 1-20 are amended, currently pending, and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the claims have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 9): “Claim 1 recites an improvement to computer technology. Improvements to "the way the computer stores and retrieves data in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims" are eligible improvements to computer technology, and not simply an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a), Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation et al., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed system provides a specific technical solution for managing cross-organizational database operations while maintaining data segregation and reducing the consumption of processing resources, which represents an improvement to computer functionality rather than an abstract mental process.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the limitations, as currently recited, do not represent an improvement to technology, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or otherwise add significantly more because they rely on generic computing components and software (e.g., inter-organization utility, first database, second database) as a tool to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Applicant argues (Remarks at pgs. 9-10): “The operations of claim 1 are not reasonably performable in the human mind. The Office asserts that, "with the exception of the additional elements, all the limitations in the claim can be reasonably performed in the human mind, or with the help of a pen and paper." See Office Action at p. 3. This is not the case. One cannot execute a database management system "programmed to maintain a first database . . . and a second database," as recited by claim 1, in the human mind or with the help of a pen and paper. Maintaining a single database, let alone at least two, is beyond the reasonable capabilities of a human mind. Claim 1 further recites the execution of "an inter- organizational utility" that is "arranged with authorization privileges to access the first database and the second database." The "inter-organizational utility" accesses various data and data structures from the first database, generates a data structure "a first inter-organization service order data structure" and stores that data structure at the second database. It does not make sense to consider performing these operations as a mental process. The human mind does not execute utilities or other code. The human mind does not store data at different databases and, therefore, does not encounter challenges associated with maintaining user authorization privileges for multiple databases. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as documented in the office action dated 11/10/2025, the limitations for accessing data, segregating data, generating data, and even storing data can be performed via observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to access data via observation, segregate data via judgement, generate data via evaluation, judgement, or opinion, as well as store data with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, the limitations recite abstract steps directed to the Mental Processes abstract idea grouping. Furthermore, Examiner reminds Applicant that the additional elements are recognized to not be part of the abstract idea, and are evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 (to evaluate whether the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application), and Step 2B (to evaluate whether the additional elements add significantly more to the abstract idea).
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 10): “The improvement to the operation of the computer is incorporated into claim 1. The Office asserts that, "the claims do not recite or require restricting 'inter-organization access to the data stored at the DBMS."' See Office Action at p. 3. To the contrary, claim 1 recites: a database management system programmed to maintain a first database comprising data associated with a first organization of a business enterprise and a second database comprising data associated with a second organization of the business enterprise, the first database and the second database being arranged to at least partially segregate data stored at the first database and the second database; Claim 1 further recites "an inter-organization utility" that performs various actions that result in the creation and storing a "first inter-organization service order data structure," at the second database based on data from the "first database" and involving "first user" who lacks "authorization privileges to access the second database.".”. In response, Examiner reminds Applicant that the limitations for “without granting authorization privileges to access the second database to the first user account, storing, by the inter-organization utility,” are part of the amendments dated 02/09/2026 and as such, have been properly addressed in the instant office action. See §101 rejections section below for details.
Response to §103 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §103 rejections previously applied to the claims are primarily raised in support of the amendments to claim 1, which are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §103 rejections below.
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 is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are directed to a computing system (i.e., Machine), and claim(s) 9-16 is/are directed to a method (i.e., Process), and claim(s) 17-20 is/are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium (i.e., Manufacture). Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a computing system, a method, and a machine-readable medium for enterprise resource planning. As drafted, the limitations recited by the independent claims fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea group by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a method, a system, and a computer-readable storage medium for processing data to conduct an attribution analysis with the following limitations:
a database management system programmed to maintain a first database comprising data associated with a first organization of a business enterprise and a second database comprising data associated with a second organization of the business enterprise, the first database and the second database being arranged to at least partially segregate data stored at the first database and the second database; (But for the recitation of additional elements (underlined), the steps to “segregate data stored“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
and an inter-organization utility, the inter-organization utility being arranged with authorization privileges to access the first database and the second database being programmed to perform operations comprising: accessing a source service order data structure from the first database, the source service order data structure describing a source service order to be completed by the first organization, the source service order data structure comprising an identifier of the first organization, and service item data describing at least one service item to be performed to complete the source service order; (But for the recitation of additional elements (underlined), the steps to “accessing a source service order data structure“ and “accessing service item data” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
accessing distribution request data, the distribution request data describing a request from a first user account that a first service item of the at least one service item be distributed for completion by the second organization, the first user account being associated with authorization privileges to access the first database and lacking authorization privileges to access the second database; (But for the recitation of additional elements (underlined), the steps for “accessing distribution request data“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
generating a first inter-organization service order data structure describing a first inter- organization service order to be completed by the second organization, the first inter- organization service order data structure comprising an identifier of the second organization, inter-organization indicator data, and service, item data describing the first service item, the generating comprising copying a subset of fields from the source service order data structure to the first inter-organization service order; (The steps for “generating a first inter-organization service order data structure“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
and without granting authorization privileges to access the second database to the first user account, storing the first inter-organization service order data structure to the second database. (But for the recitation of additional elements (underlined), the steps for “storing the first inter-organization service order data structure“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B recited by the independent claims are: processor, inter-organization utility, first database, second database, and non-transitory machine-readable medium.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce additional elements for consideration.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely processor, and non-transitory machine-readable medium from the independent claims, these additional elements have been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With respect to the first database, the second database, and the inter-organization utility additional element from the independent claims, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (further supported by Applicant’s own specification, where in at least par. [0022], Applicant discloses: “The inter-organization utility may execute as an ERP application, as a component of an operations ERP application or other ERP application, and/or as part of a suite of ERP applications.”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely processor, first database, second database, and non-transitory machine-readable medium from the independent claims, these additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
With respect to the first database, the second database, and the inter-organization utility additional element from the independent claims, these additional elements fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea because they provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (further supported by Applicant’s own specification, where in at least par. [0022], Applicant discloses: “The inter-organization utility may execute as an ERP application, as a component of an operations ERP application or other ERP application, and/or as part of a suite of ERP applications.”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The ordered combination of elements in the claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budka et al. (US 20020082895 A1, hereinafter “Budka”), in view of Heimermann et al. (US 20020143692 A1, hereinafter “Heimermann”), in further view of Schuljak et al. (US 20230136570 A1, hereinafter “Schuljak”), in further view of Aboujaoude et al. (US 8307406 B1, hereinafter “Aboujaoude”).
Regarding claims 1/9/17: Budka teaches a computing system comprising at least one processor ([0024] FIG. 2 shows a system block diagram of the client computing systems 12 used in executing an illustrated embodiment of the present invention. As in FIG. 1, the client computing systems 12 each include the display 20, keyboard 26 and mouse 28. Additionally, each of the client computing systems 12 can include subsystems, such as a processor 36, system memory 38, fixed persistent memory 40, media drive 42, display adapter 44, sound card 46, speakers 48, and network interface 50. Arrows 52 represent the system bus architecture of the client computing systems 12.), a method ([0057] method 340), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium ([0021] computer-readable media is represented as a CD-ROM disk 32, the project tracking system 10 can employ other computer-readable media, including but not limited to, floppy disks, tape, flash memory, system memory, and hard drives.) with the following limitations:
operations comprising: accessing a source service order data structure from the first database, the source service order data structure describing a source service order to be completed by the first organization, the source service order data structure comprising an identifier of the first organization, and service item data describing at least one service item to be performed to complete the source service order; ([Fig. 1] Database 34; [0042] FIG. 7 shows a request window 178 for receiving and/or displaying request related information 180.; [0043] The request related information 180 includes a project identifier 179, title 181, and project author 183, request author 185, and total committed finding amount 187. This information corresponds to the values in the respective fields of the project window 58.; [0045] The request information 180 of the request window 178 also includes assignment information fields 204 to identify a person or entity assigned to carrying out the request. The assignment information 204 includes a "personnel" field 206 for receiving and/or displaying an identifier for an individual or entity assigned to carry out the request.);
accessing distribution request data, the distribution request data describing a request from a first user account that a first service item of the at least one service item be distributed for completion by the second organization, the first user account being associated with authorization privileges to access the first database and lacking authorization privileges to access the second database; ([0033] The project window 58 displays project level information 60. For example, the project window 58 includes a "title" field 80 for receiving and/or displaying a title for a project. "project number" field 82 receives and/or displays a project number for the project. A "project type" field 84 receives and/or displays a project type indicator (e.g., miscellaneous work). Selection of a pull-down list icon 86 allows the user to select from a number of predefined project types. Selection of a "more" button 88 allows the user to enter additional information for special or unique projects. A "document number" field 90 receives and/or displays an identifying number for a related document. A "requested by" field 92 receives and/or displays the name or identifier of the person or entity requesting the project.);
generating a first inter-organization service order data structure describing a first inter- organization service order to be completed by the second organization, the first inter- organization service order data structure comprising an identifier of the second organization, inter-organization indicator data, and service, item data describing the first service item, the generating comprising copying a subset of fields from the source service order data structure to the first inter-organization service order; (FIG. 8 shows the request window 178 and the tabbed task form 214. The task form 214 includes the task table 224 including a number of rows 226 for displaying and storing information about respective tasks. The task table 224 includes a number of columns for storing task related information for each task. For example, a "project" column 228 receives and/or displays the project identifier that identifies the project to which the task belongs. A "request" column 230 stores the request identifier that identifies the request to which the task belongs. A "task" column 232 receives and/or displays an identifier identifying the task with respect to the other tasks in the request. A "task title" column 234 stores a title for further identifying the task in a form convenient for the users. An "author" column 236 receives and/or displays an identifier identifying the author of the particular task. A "status" column 238 receives and/or displays an indication of the status of the task (e.g., progress).; 0050] FIG. 9 shows a task window 240 for receiving and displaying task related information 242. The task related information includes the project identifier 244, project title 246, and project author 248. The task related information 242 also includes the request identifier 250, request title 252, and request author 254. The task related information 242 further includes the task identifier 256 and task author 258. A task "title" field 260 receives and/or displays a title for the task. A "funding field" 262 receives and/or displays a funding source identifier for the task. Selection of a pull-down menu 264 allows the user to select from a number of predefined funding source identifiers, corresponding to the funding sources in the funding source table 216 (FIG. 3). The task window 240 displays a cumulative amount of funding 261 committed to the project, a cumulative invoiced amount 263, and a balance amount 265 of committed funds remaining.; [0060] If the user has sufficient authority, the server computing system 14 enters or modifies the project level information, for example in the database 34, in step 350. The server computing system 14 can cause the client computing system 12 to refresh the screen 22, to update the project window 58 to accurately reflect the new or modified project level information.);
Budka doesn’t teach:
a database management system programmed to maintain a first database comprising data associated with a first organization of a business enterprise and a second database comprising data associated with a second organization of the business enterprise,
the first database and the second database being arranged to at least partially segregate data stored at the first database and the second database;
and an inter-organization utility, the inter-organization utility being arranged with authorization privileges to access the first database and the second database being programmed to perform operations
and without granting authorization privileges to access the second database to the first user account,
storing the first inter-organization service order data structure to the second database.
Heimermann teaches:
a database management system programmed to maintain a first database comprising data associated with a first organization of a business enterprise and a second database comprising data associated with a second organization of the business enterprise, ([0227] The System includes separate databases to record data about: (1) requisitions; and (2) orders. Both are maintained exclusively within the "internal" portion of the System, such that no data within either database is available to anyone other than authorized government official/employee users of that "internal" system-portion. The requisitions database keeps track of past and presently pending requisitions.);
the first database and the second database being arranged to at least partially segregate data stored at the first database and the second database; ([0199] The requisition database of the System is the vehicle by which screening for proper authorization and purchase-within-permission is digitally performed.; [0216] The System's database of past and pending orders fulfills the supplier performance data-recording role for purposes of this evaluation/re-evaluation function.; [0227] The System includes separate databases to record data about: (1) requisitions; and (2) orders. Both are maintained exclusively within the "internal" portion of the System, such that no data within either database is available to anyone other than authorized government official/employee users of that "internal" system-portion. The requisitions database keeps track of past and presently pending requisitions.; [0228] Pending requisition tracking is accomplished by the System's requisitions database, which also compiles patterns of requisitioning, both for the state as a whole, and by specific administrative units, and even as to each authorized requisitioner. These compilations in turn are used by the System to generate both regular reports of requisition patterns, and also exception reports of unusual requisitions.; [0229] The System's order database is associated with a digital order management (also sometimes called, "order-tracking") facility within the System that provides real-time order status advisories to all relevant participants in the procurement process. This order management facility also generally monitors all steps of the procurement process.);
storing the first inter-organization service order data structure to the second database. ([0227] The System includes separate databases to record data about: (1) requisitions; and (2) orders.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Budka with Heimermann’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so, so that no data within either database is available to anyone other than authorized government official / employee users of that "internal" system-portion. (Heimermann; [0227]). By incorporating the teachings of Heimermann, one would’ve been able to maintain separate databases to maximize data safety.
Heimermann doesn’t teach:
and an inter-organization utility, the inter-organization utility being arranged with authorization privileges to access the first database and the second database being programmed to perform operations
and without granting authorization privileges to access the second database to the first user account,
Schuljak teaches:
and an inter-organization utility, the inter-organization utility being arranged with authorization privileges to access the first database and the second database being programmed to perform operations ([0016] The users of the entity may include one or more employees, one or more contractors, one or more partners, one or more customers, one or more end-consumers, and/or the like. In addition, each user may have one or more access privileges with respect to the one or more external systems. An access privilege for a user may define a level of access that is permitted for the user with respect to an external system. In particular, an access privilege for a user with respect to an external system may represent that the user has permission to perform one or more specific actions in the external system. Thus, the one or more access privileges of a user may dictate what the user is allowed to do in the one or more external systems. For example, an access privilege for a user may represent that the user has permission to access one or more specific modules of a CAM system. In another example, an access privilege for a user may represent that the user has permission to access one or more specific databases of an ERP system. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the ERP system from Schuljak as equivalent to the inter-organization utility from Applicant’s claim. This is further supported by Applicant’s own specification, where in at least par. [0022] Applicant discloses: “The inter-organization utility may execute as an ERP application, as a component of an operations ERP application or other ERP application, and/or as part of a suite of ERP applications.”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Budka with Schuljak’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to use an identity and access management (IAM) system to manage the access privileges for its users (Schuljak; [0017]). By incorporating the teachings of Schuljak, one would’ve been able to restrict access to the databases separately, based on user privileges.
Schuljak doesn’t teach:
and without granting authorization privileges to access the second database to the first user account,
Aboujaoude teaches:
and without granting authorization privileges to access the second database to the first user account, ([Claim 1] using the first authentication application and based on first settings associated with the user, the second authentication application being associated with a secure database; granting using the second authentication application the user access to a database application associated with the secure database; [Claim 6] wherein the user is denied access to a second database application based on the second settings associated with the user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Budka with Aboujaoude’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to grant access to at least one portion of a database, then the second set of user settings are utilized to determine whether the user should be granted access to specific database application(s) and/or functions within the database application(s) 250 (Aboujaoude; [Column 4, Lines 22-32]). By incorporating the teachings of Aboujaounde, one would’ve been able to restrict access to the databases separately, based on user privileges.
Regarding claims 2/10/18: Budka further teaches:
further comprising: receiving, from the first user account, a view request requesting at least a portion of the first inter-organization service order data structure ([0058] In step 342, the server computing system 14 receives a user request for project level information regarding a particular project. The user generates the request at the client computing system 12, which passes the request to the server computing system 14 over the network 18.);
denying the view request ([0068] Different sets of users can have various levels of privilege for controlling create, read, write and/or delete access to various portions of the project related information (i.e. project level information, request level information and task level information). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the teachings of Budka related to user privileges as being inclusive of Applicant’s limitation of “denying the view request”.).
Regarding claims 3/11/19: Budka further teaches:
the operations further comprising: accessing an indication that the first service item has been completed by the second organization ([0045] A "status" field 210 receives and/or displays an indication of the status of a request (e.g., completed). Selection of an "assigned to" icon 212 allows the user to browse and select one or more individuals or entities as responsible for carrying out the request.);
responsive to the indication that the first service item has been completed by the second organization, modifying the source service order data structure to indicate that the first service item has been completed ([0047] User selection of a "save, send, close" icon 222 saves the request, including any new or modified request related information 180, transmits the request to the assigned person or entity identified in the "personnel" field 206 and closes the request window 178. Selection of a "close" icon 223 closes the request window 178, without saving or transmitting the request.).
Regarding claims 4/12/20: Budka doesn’t explicitly teach:
the operations further comprising generating an accounts receivable posting at the second database
the accounts receivable posting indicating the first organization to pay the accounts receivable posting
Heimermann teaches:
the operations further comprising generating an accounts receivable posting at the second database ([0257] The System, upon acceptance of a bid, digitally generates an invoice form reciting price and all terms of sale, e-mailing it to the successful supplier's electronic address within the Web site, and simultaneously transferring all information to the internal portion of the System);
the accounts receivable posting indicating the first organization to pay the accounts receivable posting ([0327] Upon such automatic acceptance of a bid, the System immediately provides comprehensive transaction processing. Winning Bid Deductive Determination and Supplier/Shipper Notification (FIG. 2) (27) immediately generates notice in an invoice form to the successful supplier's e-mail address.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Budka with Heimermann’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to entirely automate such processes (Heimermann; [00326]). By incorporating the additional teachings of Heimermann, one would’ve been able to generate accounts receivables.
Regarding claims 5/13: Budka further teaches:
the operations further comprising generating an accounts payable posting at the first database ([0055] FIG. 11 shows the task window 240 having the details of the invoice form 292 visible. The invoice form 292 includes an invoice table 312 including a number of rows 314 corresponding to respective invoices. The invoice table 312 also includes a number of columns storing detailed information for each of the invoices. For example, an "invoice number" column receives and/or displays a number identifying the invoice. An "invoice amount" column 318 receives and/or displays an amount of the invoice. An "invoice date" field 320 identifies a date of the invoice. A "date entered" 322 identifies the date that the invoice was entered into the project tracking system 10. An "invoice total" field 324 automatically identifies the cumulative total of the invoices in the invoice table 312.);
the accounts payable posting indicating the second organization as a recipient of the accounts payable posting ([0050] FIG. 9 shows a task window 240 for receiving and displaying task related information 242. The task related information includes the project identifier 244, project title 246, and project author 248. The task related information 242 also includes the request identifier 250, request title 252, and request author 254. The task related information 242 further includes the task identifier 256 and task author 258. A task "title" field 260 receives and/or displays a title for the task. A "funding field" 262 receives and/or displays a funding source identifier for the task. Selection of a pull-down menu 264 allows the user to select from a number of predefined funding source identifiers, corresponding to the funding sources in the funding source table 216 (FIG. 3).).
Regarding claims 6/14: Budka further teaches:
the operations further comprising: accessing new service item request data describing a request from the first user account to add a second service item to the service item data of the source service order data structure, the new service item request data indicating that the second organization is to complete the second service item ([0059] In step 346, the server computing system 14 receives a user request via the client computing system 12 and network 18, to enter or modify project level information regarding the particular project. (Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the actions from Applicant’s claim to add a second service item to an existing to be equivalent to Budka’s action to “enter or modify project level information regarding the particular project”.).);
modifying the first inter-organization service order data structure to include a description of the second service item ([0053] Selection of a "save" icon 306 saves the task related information 242 as a task.).
Regarding claims 7/15: Budka further teaches:
the operations further comprising: accessing new service item request data describing a request from the first user account to add a second service item to the service item data of the source service order data structure ([0058] In step 342, the server computing system 14 receives a user request for project level information regarding a particular project. The user generates the request at the client computing system 12, which passes the request to the server computing system 14 over the network 18. In step 344, the server computing system 14 causes the client computing system 12 to display the project window 58 on the screen 22 of the client computing system 12.);
the new service item request data indicating that a third organization is to complete the second service item; and generating a second inter-organization service order data structure describing a second inter-organization service order to be completed by the third organization ([0045] Selection of an "assigned to" icon 212 allows the user to browse and select one or more individuals or entities as responsible for carrying out the request.);
the second inter-organization service order data structure comprising an identifier of the third organization, inter-organization indicator data, and service item data describing the second service item ([0045] The assignment information 204 includes a "personnel" field 206 for receiving and/or displaying an identifier for an individual or entity assigned to carry out the request.).
Regarding claims 8/16: Budka further teaches:
the generating of the first inter- organization service order data structure comprising executing a copy utility, the copy utility configured to copy a subset of fields from the source service order to the first inter-organization service order, the subset of fields comprising a requested start date for the first service item and a requested end date for the first service item ([0031] The menu bar 62 includes a variety of pull-down menus 64-73 for allowing a user to interact with the project tracking system 10. For example, "file" pull-down menu 64 includes user selectable icons for creating, opening and closing files. An "edit" pull-down menu 65 includes user selectable icons for editing, such as copying, pasting and deleting. A "project" pull-down menu 66 includes user selectable icons for creating, opening and closing projects. A "request" pull-down menu 67 includes user selectable icons for creating, opening and closing requests. A "task" pull-down menu 68 includes user selectable icons for creating, opening and closing tasks.; [0033] A "date created" field 96 receives and/or displays a date corresponding to the date that the project was created. An "estimated complete date" field 98 displays a date corresponding to the estimated completion date for the project. A "date started" field 100 receives and/or displays a date corresponding to the date that the project is started. A "date completed" field 102 receives and/or displays a date corresponding to the date that the project is completed.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights